w 


ssMS>A!a*; 


i  j:-viv 


mm 

ii 


yi 


5".  l3/c3 

Stom  f  ^e  feifirat)?  of 

(profcBBor  TJ7ifftam  J^enrg  (Breen 

Q^equeaf^eb  6g  ^im  fo 
f  ^e  feifirat)?  of 

(J)rtncefon  ^^eofogicaf  ^emtnarg 


f 


I 


THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 


IN   TUE 


JEWISH  CHUECH 


THE 

OLD  TESTAMENT 


IN    THE 


JEWISH    CHURCH 


A  COURSE  OF  LECTURES  ON  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM 


/ 

By  W.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 


SECOND    EDITION    REVISED    AND    MUCH    ENLARGED 


NEW   YORK 
D.   APPLETON    AND    CO. 

1892 


AMPLISSIMO  .   THEOLOGORVM  •   ARGENTINENSIVM  •   ORDI^-I 

QVORVM  •   MVNERE 

AD  .    GRADVil  .   DOCTORIS  •   THEOLOGIAE   •  PROVECTYS  •   EST 

HVNC  .   LIBRVM  •   SACRVM  •   ESSE 

VOLVIT  •   AVCTOR 


PKEFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION 

In  republishing  these  Lectures,  eleven  years  after  their  first 
appearance,  I  have  had  to  consider  what  to  emend,  what  to 
omit,  and  what  to  add.  First,  then,  a  careful  revision  of  the 
whole  volume  has  enabled  me  to  correct  a  certain  number  of 
errors,  and  to  make  many  statements  more  precise.  In  the 
second  place,  I  have  pruned  away  some  redundancies  more 
proper  to  oral  delivery  than  to  a  printed  book ;  and  I  have 
also  removed  from  the  "  ISTotes  and  Illustrations  "  some  things 
which  seemed  to  be  superfluous.  As  I  was  resolved  to  make 
no  change  on  the  general  plan  of  the  book,  I  at  first  hoped 
that  these  omissions  would  give  me  space  for  all  necessary 
additions  ;  for  though  much  good  work  has  been  done  within 
the  last  decade  on  special  problems  of  Old  Testament  Criticism, 
there  are  not  many  points  where  these  special  researches  affect 
the  general  arguments  and  broad  results  which  I  desired  to 
set  forth.  But  on  mature  consideration  I  came  to  see  that  in 
one  direction  the  book  might  be  profitably  enlarged  without 
a  fundamental  change  of  plan ;  it  was  desirable  to  give  a 
fuller  account  of  what  the  critics  have  to  say  about  the  narra- 
tive of  the  Old  Testament  Books.  I  liave,  therefore,  made 
large  additions  to  the  part  of  Lecture  V,  that  treats  of  the 
historical  books,  and,  in  consequence,  have  thrown  the  whole 
discussion  of  the  Canon  into  Lecture  VI.     To  the  narrative 


Vlll  PREFACE    TO    THE    SECOND    EDITION 

of  the  Hexateucli  I  have  devoted  a  supplementary  Lecture 
(XIII.).  Further,  I  have  rewritten  the  greater  part  of  the 
Lecture  on  the  Psalter  (VII.),  incorporating  the  main  con- 
clusions of  my  article  on  this  subject  in  the  ninth  edition  of 
the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica.  I  have  also  made  considerable 
changes  on  Lecture  XL,  and  at  several  other  places  I  have 
introduced  additional  arguments  and  illustrations.  Thus  the 
book  has  grown  till,  in  spite  of  omissions,  it  contains  about 
one-third  more  matter  than  the  first  edition ;  and  so  it  now 
appears  with  a  larger  page,  and  with  most  of  the  notes  placed 
under  the  text,  instead  of  being  relegated  to  the  end  of  the 
volume.  Of  the  few  "  Additional  Notes  "  which  still  stand 
after  the  text,  those  marked  B,  C,  and  E,  except  the  last 
paragraph  of  B,  are  taken  from  the  first  edition ;  the  others 
are  new,  and  contain  some  observations  which,  I  hope,  may 
be  of  interest  to  Hebrew  scholars,  as  well  as  to  the  larger 
class  of  readers  for  whom  the  book  is  mainly  intended. 

W.  EOBEETSON  SMITH. 


Christ's  College,  Cambridge, 
Z\st  March  1892. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION 

The  Twelve  Lectures  now  laid  before  the  public  had  their 
origin  in  a  temporary  victory  of  the  opponents  of  progressive 
Biblical  Science  in  Scotland,  which  has  withdrawn  me  during 
the  past  winter  from  the  ordinary  work  of  my  Chair  in 
Aberdeen,  and  in  the  invitation  of  some  six  hundred  promi- 
nent Free  Churchmen  in  Edinburgh  and  Glasgow,  who 
deemed  it  better  that  the  Scottish  public  should  have  an 
opportunity  of  understanding  the  position  of  the  newer 
Criticism  than  that  they  should  condemn  it  unheard.  The 
Lectures  were  delivered  in  Edinburgh  and  Glasgow  during 
the  first  three  months  of  the  present  year,  and  the  average 
attendance  on  the  course  in  the  two  cities  was  not  less  than 
eighteen  hundred.  The  sustained  interest  with  which  this 
large  audience  followed  the  attempt  to  lay  before  them  an 
outline  of  the  problems,  the  methods,  and  the  results  of  Old 
Testament  Criticism  is  sufficient  proof  that  they  did  not  find 
modern  Biblical  Science  the  repulsive  and  unreal  thing  which 
it  is  often  represented  to  be.  The  Lectures  are  printed 
mainly  from  shorthand  reports  taken  in  Glasgow,  and  as 
nearly  as  possible  in  the  form  in  which  they  were  delivered 
in  Edinburgh  after  final  revision.  I  have  striven  to  make 
my  exposition  essentially  popular  in  the  legitimate  sense  of 
that  word — that  is,  to  present  a  continuous  argument,  resting 


PREFACE    TO    THE    FIRST    EDITION 


at  every  point  on  valid  historical  evidence,  and  so  framed 
that  it  can  be  followed  by  the  ordinary  English  reader  who 
is  familiar  with  the  Bible  and  accustomed  to  consecutive 
thought.  There  are  some  critical  processes  which  cannot 
be  explained  without  constant  use  of  the  Hebrew  Text ;  but 
I  have  tried  to  make  all  the  main  parts  of  the  discussion 
independent  of  reference  to  these.  Of  course  it  is  not 
possible  for  any  sound  argument  to  adopt  in  every  case 
the  renderings  of  the  English  Version.  In  important 
passages  I  have  indicated  the  necessary  corrections ;  but  in 
general  it  is  to  be  understood  that,  while  I  cite  all  texts  by 
the  English  chapters  and  verses,  I  argue  from  the  Hebrew. 

The  appended  notes  are  designed  to  complete  and  illus- 
trate the  details  of  the  argument,  and  to  make  the  book 
more  useful  to  students  by  supplying  hints  for  further  study. 
I  have  made  no  attempt  to  give  complete  references  to  the 
modern  literature  of  the  subject.  Indeed,  as  the  Lectures 
have  been  written,  delivered,  and  printed  in  three  months, 
it  was  impossible  for  me  to  reconsult  all  the  books  which 
have  influenced  my  views,  and  acknowledge  my  indebtedness 
to  each.  My  effort  has  been  to  give  a  lucid  view  of  the 
critical  argument  as  it  stands  in  my  own  mind,  and  to 
support  it  in  every  part  from  the  text  of  Scripture  or 
other  original  sources.  It  is  of  the  first  importance  that 
the  reader  should  realise  that  Biblical  Criticism  is  not  the 
invention  of  modern  scholars,  but  the  legitimate  interpreta- 
tion of  historical  facts.  I  have  tried,  therefore,  to  keep  the 
facts  always  in  the  foreground,  and,  when  they  are  derived 
from  ancient  books  not  in  every  one's  hands,  I  have  either 
given  full  citations,  or  made  careful  reference  to  the  original 
authorities. 


PREFACE    TO    THE    FIRST    EDITION  xi 

The  great  value  of  historical  criticism  is  that  it  makes 
the  Old  Testament  more  real  to  us.  Christianity  can  never 
separate  itself  from  its  historical  basis  on  the  Eeligion  of 
Israel ;  the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ  cannot  be  divorced 
from  the  earlier  revelation  on  which  our  Lord  built.  In  all 
true  religion  the  new  rests  upon  the  old.  No  one,  then,  to 
whom  Christianity  is  a  reality  can  safely  acquiesce  in  an 
unreal  conception  of  the  Old  Testament  history ;  and  in  an 
age  when  all  are  interested  in  historical  research,  no  apolo- 
getic can  prevent  thoughtful  minds  from  drifting  away  from 
faith  if  the  historical  study  of  the  Old  Covenant  is  condemned 
by  the  Church  and  left  in  the  hands  of  unbelievers. 

The  current  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  has  produced 
a  widespread  uneasy  suspicion  that  this  history  cannot  bear 
to  be  tested  like  other  ancient  histories.  The  old  method  of 
explaining  difficulties  and  reconciling  apparent  contradictions 
would  no  longer  be  tolerated  in  dealing  with  other  books, 
and  men  ask  themselves  whether  our  Christian  faith,  the 
most  precious  gift  of  truth  which  God  has  given  us,  can 
safely  base  its  defence  on  arguments  that  bring  no  sense  of 
reality  to  the  mind.  Yet  the  history  of  Israel,  when  rightly 
studied,  is  the  most  real  and  vivid  of  all  histories,  and  the 
proofs  of  God's  working  among  His  people  of  old  may  still 
be  made,  what  they  were  in  time  past,  one  of  the  strongest 
evidences  of  Christianity.  It  was  no  blind  chance,  and  no 
mere  human  wisdom,  that  shaped  the  growth  of  Israel's 
religion,  and  finally  stamped  it  in  these  forms,  now  so  strange 
to  us,  which  preserved  the  living  seed  of  the  Divine  word 
till  the  fulness  of  the  time  when  He  was  manifested  who 
transformed  the  religion  of  Israel  into  a  religion  for  all 
mankind. 


Xll  PREFACE    TO    THE    FIRST    EDITION 

The  iucreasing  influence  of  critical  views  among  earnest 
students  of  the  Bible  is  not  to  be  explained  on  the  Manichean 
theory  that  new  views  commend  themselves  to  mankind  in 
proportion  as  they  ignore  God.  The  living  God  is  as  present 
in  the  critical  construction  of  the  history  as  in  that  to  which 
tradition  has  wedded  us.  Criticism  is  a  reality  and  a  force 
because  it  unfolds  a  living  and  consistent  picture  of  the  Old 
Dispensation;  it  is  itself  a  living  thing,  which  plants  its 
foot  upon  realities,  and,  like  Dante  among  the  shades,  proves 
its  life  by  moving  what  it  touches. 

"  Cosl  lion  soglion  fare  i  pie  de'  morti." 

W.  EOBEETSON  SMITH. 

Aberdeen,  ^th  April  1881. 


CONTENTS 


LECTURE    I 

PAGE 

Criticism  and  the  Theology  of  the  Reformation     .  .         1 


LECTUEE    II 

Christian  Interpretation  and  Jewish  Tradition     ,  .21 

LECTUEE    III 

The  Scribes  .  .  .....       42 

LECTUEE    IV 

The  Septuagint  .  .  .  .  .  .73 

LECTUEE    V 

The  Septuagint  (continued) — The  Composition  of  Biblical 

Books     .  .  .  .  .  .  .     108 

LECTUEE    VI 

The  History  of  the  Canon  .  .  .  .  .149 

LECTUEE    VII 

The  Psalter  .  .  .  .  .  .188 


XIV  CONTENTS 


LECTUEE    VIII 

PAGE 

The  Traditional  Theory  of  the  Old  Testament  History  .     226 

LECTUEE    IX 

The  Law  and  the  History  of  Israel  before  the  Exile  .     254 

LECTUEE    X 

The  Prophets  ...,.,     278 

LECTUEE    XI 

The  Pentateuch  :  The  First  Legislation    .              .  .309 

LECTUEE    XII 

The  Dedteronomic  Code  and  the  Levitical  Law      .  .346 

LECTUEE    XIII 

The  Narrative  of  the  Hexateuch  .                           .  .388 

Additional  Notes — 

A.  The  Text  of  1  Sam.  xvii.        .               .               ,  ,431 

B.  Hebrew  Fragments  preserved  in  the  Septuagint  .      433 

C.  Sources  of  Psalm  Ixxxvi.         ,              .              ,  ,435 

D.  Maccabee  Psalms  in  Books  I. -III.  of  the  Psalter  .     437 

E.  The  Fifty-first  Psalm                .              .              ,  .440 

F.  The  Development  of  the  Eitual  System  between  Ezekiel 

and  Ezra     .               .               .               =               .  .      442 

Index  of  Passages  discussed          .             ,             .  .451 

General  Index         .              .              .             .              .  .453 


LECTUEE   I 

CRITICISM  AND   THE   THEOLOGY   OF  THE  KEFOEMATION 

I  HAVE  undertaken  to  deliver  a  course  of  lectures  to  you, 
not  with  a  polemical  purpose,  but  in  answer  to  a  request  for 
information.  I  am  not  here  to  defend  my  private  opinion  on 
any  disputed  question,  but  to  expound  as  well  as  I  can  the 
elements  of  a  well-established  department  of  historical  study. 
Biblical  criticism  is  a  branch  of  historical  science  ;  and  I 
hope  to  convince  you  as  we  proceed  that  it  is  a  legitimate 
and  necessary  science,  which  must  continue  to  draw  the 
attention  of  all  who  go  deep  into  the  Bible  and  the  religion 
of  the  Bible,  if  there  is  any  Biblical  science  at  all. 

It  would  be  affectation  to  ignore  the  fact  that  in  saying 
so  much  I  at  once  enter  upon  ground  of  controversy.  The 
science  of  Biblical  Criticism  has  not  escaped  the  fate  of  every 
science  which  takes  topics  of  general  human  interest  for  its 
subject  matter,  and  advances  theories  destructive  of  current 
views  upon  things  with  which  every  one  is  familiar  and  in 
which  every  one  has  some  practical  concern.  It  would  argue 
indifference  rather  than  enlightenment,  if  the  great  mass  of 
Bible-readers,  to  whom  scientific  points  of  view  for  the  study 
of  Scripture  are  wholly  unfamiliar,  could  adjust  themselves 
to  a  new  line  of  investigation  into  the  history  of  the  Bible 


GOD  S    WORD    AND  lect.  i 


without  passing  through  a  crisis  of  anxious  thought  not  far 
removed  from  distress  and  alarm. 

The  deepest  practical  convictions  of  our  lives  are  seldom 
formulated  with  precision.  They  have  been  learned  by  ex- 
perience rather  than  by  logic,  and  we  are  content  if  we  can 
give  them  an  expression  accurate  enough  to  meet  our  daily 
wants.  And  so  when  we  have  to  bring  these  convictions  to 
bear  on  some  new  question,  the  formula  which  has  sufficed  us 
hitherto  is  very  apt  to  lead  us  astray.  For  in  rough  practical 
formulas,  in  the  w^orking  rules,  if  I  may  so  call  them,  of  our 
daily  spiritual  life,  the  essential  is  constantly  mixed  up  with 
what  is  unimportant  or  even  incorrect.  We  store  our 
treasures  of  conviction  in  earthen  vessels,  and  the  broken 
pipkin  of  an  obsolete  formula  often  acquires  for  us  the  value 
of  the  treasure  wdiich  it  enshrines. 

The  persuasion  that  in  the  Bible  God  Himself  speaks 
words  of  love  and  life  to  the  soul  is  the  essence  of  the 
Christian's  conviction  as  to  the  truth  and  authority  of 
Scripture.  This  persuasion  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  derived 
from  external  testimony.  ISTo  tradition  as  to  the  worth  of 
Scripture,  no  assurance  transmitted  from  our  fathers,  or 
from  any  who  in  past  time  heard  God's  revealing  voice, 
can  make  the  revelation  to  which  they  bear  witness  a 
personal  voice  of  God  to  us.  The  element  of  personal  con- 
viction, which  lifts  faith  out  of  the  region  of  probable 
evidence  into  the  sphere  of  divine  certainty,  is  given  only 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  still  bearing  witness  in  and  with  the 
Word.  But  then  the  Word  to  wdiich  this  spiritual  testimony 
applies  is  a  written  word,  which  has  a  history,  wdiich  has  to 
be  read  and  explained  like  other  ancient  books.  How  w^e 
read  and  explain  the  Bible  depends  in  great  measure  on 
human  teaching.  The  Bible  itself  is  God's  book,  but  the 
Bible  as  read  and  understood  by  any  man  or  school  of  men  is 
God's  book  ]jIus  a  very  large  element  of  human  interpretation. 


LECT.  I  man's  interpretation 


In  our  ordinary  lUble-reading  these  two  things,  the  divine 
book  and  the  human  understanding  of  tlie  book,  are  not  kept 
sharply  apart.  We  are  aware  that  some  passages  are  obscure, 
and  we  do  not  chiim  divine  certitude  for  the  interpretation 
that  we  put  on  them.  But  we  are  apt  to  forget  that  the 
influence  of  human  and  traditional  interpretation  goes  much 
further  than  a  few  obscure  passages.  Our  general  views  of 
the  Bible  history,  our  way  of  looking,  not  merely  at  passages, 
but  at  whole  books,  are  coloured  by  things  w^hich  we  have 
learned  from  men,  and  which  have  no  claim  to  rest  on  the 
self-evidencing  divine  Word.  This  we  forget,  and  so,  taking 
God's  witness  to  His  Word  to  be  a  witness  to  our  whole  con- 
ception of  the  Word,  we  claim  divine  authority  for  opinions 
which  lie  within  the  sphere  of  ordinary  reason,  and  which 
can  be  proved  or  disproved  by  the  ordinary  law^s  of  historical 
evidence.  We  assume  that,  because  our  reading  of  Scripture 
is  sufficiently  correct  to  allow  us  to  find  in  it  the  God  of 
redemption  speaking  words  of  grace  to  our  soul,  those  who 
seek  some  other  view  of  the  historical  aspects  of  Scripture 
are  trying  to  eliminate  the  God  of  grace  from  His  own 
book. 

A  large  part  of  Bible-readers  never  come  through  the 
mental  discipline  which  is  necessary  to  cure  prejudices  of 
this  kind,  or,  in  other  words,  are  never  forced  by  the  neces- 
sities of  their  intellectual  and  spiritual  life  to  distinguish 
between  the  accidental  and  the  essential,  the  human  con- 
jectures and  the  divine  truth,  which  are  wrapped  up  together 
in  current  interpretations  of  Scripture.  But  those  who  are 
called  in  providence  to  systematic  and  scholarly  study  of  the 
Bible  inevitably  come  face  to  face  with  facts  which  compel 
them  to  draw  distinctions  that,  to  a  practical  reader,  may 
seem  superfluous. 

Consider  what  systematic  and  scholarly  study  involves  in 
contradistinction  to  the  ordinary  practical  use  of  the  Bible. 


VALUE    AND    DEFECTS 


Ordinary  Bible-reading  is  eclectic  and  devotional.  A  detached 
passage  is  taken  up,  and  attention  is  concentrated  on  the 
immediate  edification  which  can  be  derived  from  it.  Very 
often  the  profit  which  the  Bible -reader  derives  from  his 
morning  or  evening  portion  lies  mainly  in  a  single  word  of 
divine  love  comin^^  straidit   home    to   the   heart.     And  in 

o  o 

general  the  real  fruit  of  such  Bible-reading  lies  less  in  any 
addition  to  one's  store  of  systematic  knowledge  than  in  the 
privilege  of  withdrawing  for  a  moment  from  the  thoughts 
and  cares  of  the  world,  to  enter  into  a  pure  and  holy  atmo- 
sphere, where  the  God  of  love  and  redemption  reveals  Himself 
to  the  heart,  and  where  the  simplest  believer  can  place  him- 
self by  the  side  of  the  psalmist,  the  prophet,  or  the  apostle, 
in  that  inner  sanctuary  where  no  sound  is  heard  but  the 
gracious  accents  of  divine  promise  and  the  sweet  response  of 
assured  and  humble  faith.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  undervalue 
such  use  of  Scripture.  It  is  by  this  power  of  touching  the 
heart  and  lifting  the  soul  into  converse  with  heaven  that  the 
Bible  approves  itself  the  pure  and  perfect  Word  of  God,  a 
lamp  unto  the  feet  and  a  light  unto  the  path  of  every  Chris- 
tian. But,  on  the  other  hand,  a  study  which  is  exclusively 
practical  and  devotional  is  necessarily  imperfect.  There  are 
many  things  in  Scripture  which  do  not  lend  themselves  to  an 
immediate  practical  purpose,  and  which  in  fact  are  as  good  as 
shut  out  from  the  circle  of  ordinary  Bible-reading.  I  know 
that  good  people  often  try  to  hide  this  fact  from  themselves 
by  hooking  on  some  sort  of  lesson  to  passages  which  they  do 
not  understand,  or  which  do  not  directly  touch  any  spiritual 
chord.  There  is  very  respectable  precedent  for  this  course, 
which  in  fact  is  nothing  else  than  the  method  of  tropical 
exegesis  that  reigned  supreme  in  the  Old  Catholic  and 
Mediaeval  Church.  The  ancient  fathers  laid  down  the  prin- 
ciple that  everything  in  Scripture  which,  taken  in  its  natural 
sense,  appears  unedifying  must  be  made  edifying  by  some 


LECT.  I  OF  ORDINARY  BIBLE-READING  5 

method  of  typical  or  figurative  application.^  In  principle 
this  is  no  longer  admitted  in  the  Protestant  Churches  (unless 
perhaps  for  the  Song  of  Solomon),  but  in  practice  we  still  get 
over  many  difficulties  by  tacking  on  a  lesson  which  is  not 
really  taken  out  of  the  difficult  passage,  but  read  into  it  from 
some  other  part  of  Scripture.  People  satisfy  themselves  in 
this  way,  but  they  do  not  solve  the  difficulty.  Let  us  be 
frank  with  ourselves,  and  admit  that  there  are  many  things 
in  Scripture  in  which  unsystematic  and  merely  devotional 
reading  finds  no  profit.  Such  parts  of  the  Bible  as  the 
genealogies  in  Chronicles,  the  description  of  Solomon's  temple, 
a  considerable  portion  of  Ezekiel,  and  not  a  few  of  the  details 
of  ritual  in  the  Pentateuch,  do  not  serve  an  immediate  devo- 
tional purpose,  and  are  really  blank  pages  except  to  system- 
atical and  critical  study.  And  for  a  different  reason  the 
same  thing  is  true  of  many  passages  of  the  prophetical  and 
poetical  books,  where  the  language  is  so  obscure,  and  the 
train  of  thought  so  difficult  to  grasp,  that  even  the  best 
scholars,  with  every  help  which  philology  can  offer,  will  not 
venture  to  affirm  that  they  possess  a  certain  interpretation. 
Difficulties  of  this  sort  are  not  confined  to  a  few  corners  of 
the  Bible.  They  run  through  the  whole  volume,  and  force 
themselves  on  the  attention  of  every  one  who  desires  to 
understand  any  book  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole. 

And  so  we  are  brought  to  this  issue.  We  may,  if  we 
please,  confine  our  study  of  Scripture  to  what  is  immediately 
edifying,  skimming  lightly  over  all  pages  which  do  not  serve 
a  direct  purpose  of  devotion,  and  ignoring  every  difficulty 

^  According  to  Origen,  Princip.  Bk,  iv.  p.  173,  the  literal  sense  of  Scripture 
is  often  impossible,  absurd,  or  immoral, — and  this  designedly,  lest,  cleaving  to 
the  letter  alone,  men  should  remain  at  a  distance  from  the  dogmata,  and  learn 
nothing  worthy  of  God.  Augustine  in  his  hermeneutical  treatise,  De  Doctrina 
Christiana  (Bk.  iii.  c.  10),  teaches  that  "Whatever  has  no  proper  bearing  on 
the  rule  of  life  or  the  verity  of  faith  must  be  recognised  as  figurative."  A  good 
example  of  the  practical  application  of  these  principles  will  be  found  in  the 
preface  to  Jerome's  Commentary  on  Hosea. 


6  THE    BIBLE    AND  lect.  i 

which  does  not  yield  to  the  faculty  of  practical  insight,  the 
power  of  spiritual  sympathy  with  the  mind  of  the  Spirit, 
which  the  thoughtful  Christian  necessarily  acquires  in  the 
habitual  exercise  of  bringing  Scripture  to  bear  on  the  daily 
needs  of  his  own  life.  This  use  of  Scripture  is  full  of  personal 
profit,  and  raises  no  intellectual  difficulties.  But  it  does  not 
do  justice  to  the  whole  "Word  of  God.  It  is  limited  for  every 
individual  by  the  limitations  of  his  own  religious  experience. 
Reading  the  Bible  in  this  way,  a  man  comes  to  a  very  per- 
sonal appreciation  of  so  much  of  God's  truth  as  is  in  im- 
mediate contact  with  the  range  of  his  own  life.  But  he  is 
sure  to  miss  many  truths  wdiich  belong  to  another  range  of 
experience,  and  to  read  into  the  inspired  page  things  from 
his  own  experience  which  involve  human  error.  Xo  man's 
inner  life  is  so  large,  so  perfectly  developed,  in  a  word  so 
normal,  that  it  can  be  used  as  a  measure  of  the  fulness  of  the 
Bible.  The  Church,  therefore,  which  aims  at  an  all-sided 
and  catholic  view,  cannot  be  content  with  so  much  of  truth 
as  has  practically  approved  itself  to  one  man,  or  any  number 
of  men,  all  fallible  and  imperfect.  What  she  desires  to  obtain 
is  the  sum  of  all  those  views  of  divine  truth  which  are 
embodied  in  the  experience  of  the  inspired  writers.  She 
must  try  to  get  the  wdiole  meaning  of  every  prophet,  psalmist, 
or  apostle, — not  by  the  rough-and-ready  method  of  culling 
from  a  chapter  as  many  truths  as  at  once  commend  them- 
selves to  a  Christian  heart,  but  by  taking  up  each  piece  of 
Biblical  authorship  as  a  whole,  realising  the  position  of  the 
writer,  and  following  out  the  progress  of  his  thought  in  its 
minutest  details.  And  in  this  process  the  Church,  or  the 
trained  theolodan  labourinsj  in  the  service  of  the  Church, 
must  not  be  discouraged  by  finding  much  that  seems  strange, 
foreign  to  current  experience,  or,  at  first  sight,  positively 
unedifying.  It  will  not  do  to  make  our  notions  the  measure 
of  God's  dealings  with  His  people  of  old.     The  systematic 


THE  REFORMATION 


student  must  first,  and  above  all,  do  justice  to  his  text. 
When  he  has  done  this,  the  practical  use  will  follow  of  itself. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  Keformation  the  only  kind  of 
theological  study  which  was  thought  worthy  of  serious  atten- 
tion was  the  study  of  dogma.  People's  daily  spiritual  life 
was  supposed  to  be  nourished,  not  by  Scripture,  but  by  the 
Sacraments.  The  experimental  use  of  Scripture,  so  dear  to 
Protestants,  was  not  recognised  as  one  of  the  main  purposes 
for  which  God  has  given  us  the  Bible.  The  use  of  the  Bible 
was  to  furnish  proof  texts  for  the  theologians  of  the  Church, 
and  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  as  expressed  in  the  Creeds 
were  the  necessary  and  sufficient  object  of  faith.  The  believer 
had  indeed  need  of  Christ  as  well  as  of  a  creed,  but  Christ 
was  held  forth  to  him,  not  in  the  Bible,  but  in  the  ]\Iass. 
The  Bible  was  the  source  of  theological  knowledge  as  to  the 
mysterious  doctrine  of  revelation,  but  the  Sacraments  were 
the  means  of  cjrace. 

The  Eeformation  changed  all  this,  and  brought  the  Bible 
to  the  front  as  a  living  means  of  grace.  How  did  it  do  so  ? 
Not,  as  is  sometimes  superficially  imagined,  by  placing  the  in- 
fallible Bible  in  room  of  the  infallible  Church,  but  by  a  change 
in  the  whole  conception  of  faith,  of  the  plan  and  purpose 
of  revelation,  and  of  the  operation  of  the  means  of  grace. 

Saving  faith,  says  Luther,  is  not  an  intellectual  assent  to 
a  system  of  doctrine  superior  to  reason,  but  a  personal  trust 
on  God  in  Christ,  the  appropriation  of  God's  personal  word 
and  promise  of  redeeming  love.  God's  grace  is  the  mani- 
festation of  His  redeeming  love,  and  the  means  of  grace  are 
the  means  which  He  adopts  to  bring  His  word  of  love  to  our 
ears  and  to  our  hearts.  All  means  of  grace,  all  sacraments, 
have  value  only  in  so  far  as  they  bring  to  us  a  personal 
Word,  that  Word  which  is  contained  in  the  gospel  and 
incarnate  in  our  Lord.  The  supreme  value  of  the  Bible  does 
not  lie  in  the  fact  that  it  is  the  ultimate  source  of  theology, 


8  Luther's  view  lkct.  i 

but  in  the  fact  that  it  contains  the  whole  message  of  God's 
love,  that  it  is  the  personal  message  of  that  love  to  me,  not 
doctrine  but  promise,  not  the  display  of  God's  metaphysical 
essence,  but  of  His  redeeming  purpose  ;  in  a  word,  of  Him- 
self as  my  God.  Filled  with  this  new  light  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  Scripture,  Luther  displays  profound  contempt  for  the 
grubbing  theologians  who  treated  the  Bible  as  a  mere  store- 
house of  proof  texts,  dealing  with  it,  as  he  says  of  Tetzel, 
"  like  a  sow  with  a  bag  of  oats."  The  Bible  is  a  living  thing. 
The  Middle  Ages  had  no  eye  for  anything  but  doctrinal 
mysteries,  and  where  these  were  lacking  sav/  only,  as  Luther 
complained,  bare  dead  histories  "which  had  simply  taken 
place  and  concerned  men  no  more."  Nay,  say  the  Eeformers. 
This  history  is  the  story  of  God's  dealings  with  his  people  of 
old.  The  heart  of  love  which  He  opened  to  them,  is  still  a 
heart  of  love  to  us.  The  great  pre-eminence  of  the  Bible 
history  is  that  in  it  God  speaks — speaks  not  in  the  language 
of  doctrine  but  of  personal  grace,  which  we  have  a  right  to 
take  home  to  us  now,  just  as  it  was  taken  by  His  ancient 
people.^ 

In  a  word,  the  Bible  is  a  book  of  Experimental  Pteligion, 
in  which  the  converse  of  God  with  His  people  is  depicted  in 
all  its  stages  up  to  the  full  and  abiding  manifestation  of 
saving  love  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  God  has  no  mess- 
age to  the  believing  soul  which  the  Bible  does  not  set  forth, 
and  set  forth  not  in  bare  formulas  but  in  living  and  experi- 
mental form,  by  giving  the  actual  history  of  the  need  which 
the  message  supplies,  and  by  showing  how  holy  men  of  old 
received  the  message  as  a  light  to  their  own  darkness,  a 
comfort  and  a  stay  to  their  own  souls.     And  so,  to  appro- 

1  See,  in  particular,  the  first  part  of  the  Freiheit  ernes  Christenmenschen, 
and  the  preface  to  Luther's  German  Bible.  On  Tetzel  see  Freiheit  des  Sermons 
vom  Ahlass  ( JVerJce,  ed.  L'raischer,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  13).  Compare  Calvin's 
Institutio,  Bk.  iii.  chap.  2 — "  The  Word  itself,  however  it  be  conveyed  to  us, 
is  like  a  mirror  in  which  faith  beholds  God." 


OF    THE    BIBLE  9 


priate  the  divine  message  for  our  wants,  we  need  no  help  of 
ecclesiastical  tradition,  no  authoritative  Churchly  exegesis. 
All  that  we  need  is  to  put  ourselves  by  the  side  of  the 
psalmist,  the  prophet,  or  the  apostle,  to  enter  by  spiritual  sym- 
pathy into  his  experience,  to  feel  our  sin  and  need  as  he  felt 
them,  and  to  take  home  to  us,  as  he  took  them,  the  gracious 
words  of  divine  love.  This  it  is  wdiich  makes  the  Bible  per- 
spicuous and  precious  to  every  one  who  is  taught  of  the  Spirit. 
The  history  of  the  Reformation  shows  that  these  views 
fell  upon  the  Church  with  all  the  force  of  a  new  discovery. 
It  was  nothing  less  than  the  resurrection  of  the  living  Word, 
buried  for  so  many  ages  under  the  dust  of  a  false  interpreta- 
tion. Now  we  all  acknowledge  the  debt  wdiich  we  owe  to 
the  Eeformers  in  this  matter.  We  are  agreed  that  to  them 
we  owe  our  open  Bible  ;  but  we  do  not  always  understand 
what  this  gift  means.  We  are  apt  to  think  and  speak  as  if 
the  Reformation  had  given  us  the  Bible  by  removing  arti- 
ficial restrictions  on  its  translation  and  circulation  amonsj  the 
laity.  There  is  a  measure  of  truth  in  this  view.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  were  translations  in  the  vulgar  tongues 
long  before  Luther.  The  Bible  was  never  wholly  withdrawn 
from  the  laity,  and  the  preaching  of  the  Word  was  the 
characteristic  office  of  the  Friars,  and  the  great  source  of 
that  popular  influence  which  they  strained  to  the  uttermost 
against  the  Pieformation.  The  real  importance  of  Luther's 
work  was  not  that  he  put  the  Bible  into  the  hands  of  the 
laity,  but  that  he  vindicated  for  the  Word  a  new  use  and  a 
living  interest  which  made  it  impossible  that  it  should  not 
be  read  by  them.  We  are  not  disciples  of  the  Reformation 
merely  because  we  have  the  Bible  in  our  hands,  and  appeal 
to  it  as  the  supreme  judge.  Luther's  opponents  appealed  to 
the  Bible  as  confidently  as  he  did.  But  they  did  not  under- 
stand the  Bible  as  he  did.  To  them  it  w^as  a  book  revealing 
abstract  doctrines.     To  him  it  was  the  record  of  God's  words 


10  THE    BIBLE    AXD  lect.  i 

and  deeds  of  love  to  the  saints  of  old,  and  of  the  answer  of 
their  inmost  heart  to  God.  This  conception  changes  the 
whole  perspective  of  Biblical  study,  and,  unless  our  studies  are 
conformed  to  it,  we  are  not  the  children  of  tlie  Eeformation. 

The  Bible,  according  to  the  Eeformation  view,  is  a  history 
— the  history  of  the  work  of  redemption  from  the  fall  of  man 
to  the  ascension  of  the  risen  Saviour  and  the  mission  of  the 
Spirit  by  which  the  Church  still  lives.  But  the  history  is 
not  a  mere  chronicle  of  supernatural  deeds  and  revelations. 
It  is  the  inner  history  of  the  converse  of  God  with  man  that 
gives  the  Bible  its  peculiar  worth.  The  story  of  God's  grace 
is  expounded  to  us  by  psalmists,  prophets,  and  apostles,  as 
they  realised  it  in  their  own  lives.  For  the  progress  of 
Eevelation  w^as  not  determined  arbitrarily.  No  man  can 
learn  anything  aright  about  God  and  His  love,  unless  the 
new  truth  come  home  to  his  heart  and  grow  into  his  life. 
What  is  still  true  of  our  appropriation  of  revealed  truth  was 
true  also  of  its  first  communication.  Inspked  men  were  able 
to  receive  and  set  down  new  truths  of  revelation  as  a  sure 
rule  for  our  guidance,  because  these  truths  took  hold  of  them 
with  a  personal  grasp,  and  supplied  heartfelt  needs.  Thus 
the  record  of  revelation  becomes,  so  to  speak,  the  autobio- 
graphy of  the  Church — the  story  of  a  converse  with  God,  in 
which  the  saints  of  old  actually  lived. 

Accordingly,  the  first  business  of  the  Eeformation  theo- 
logian is  not  to  crystallise  Bible  truths  into  doctrines,  but  to 
follow,  in  all  its  phases,  the  manifold  inner  history  of  the 
religious  life  which  the  Bible  unfolds.  It  is  his  business  to 
study  every  word  of  Scripture,  not  merely  by  grammar  and 
logic,  but  in  its  relation  to  the  life  of  the  writer,  and  the 
actual  circumstances  in  which  God's  Word  came  to  him. 
Only  in  this  way  can  we  hope  to  realise  the  whole  rich 
personal  meaning  of  the  Word  of  grace.  For  God  never  spoke 
a  word  to  any  soul  that  was  not  exactly  fitted  to  the  occasion 


LECT.  I  THE    REFORMATIOX  11 

and  the  man.     Separate  it  from  this  context,  and  it  is  no 
longer  the  same  perfect  Word. 

The  great  goodness  of  God  to  us,  in  His  gift  of  the  Bible, 
appears  very  specially  in  the  copious  materials  wliich  He  has 
supplied  for  our  assistance  in  this  task  of  historical  exegesis. 
There  are  large  passages  in  the  Bible,  especially  in  the  Old 
Testament,  which,  taken  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  book,  would 
appear  quite  deficient  in  spiritual  instruction.  Crude  ration- 
alism often  proposes  to  throw  these  aside  as  mere  lumber, 
forming  no  integral  part  of  the  record  of  revelation.  And,  on 
the  other  hand,  a  narrowly  timid  faith  sometimes  insists  that 
such  passages,  even  in  their  isolation,  must  be  prized  as  highly 
as  the  Psalms  or  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Both  these  views 
are  wrong,  and  both  err  in  the  same  way,  by  forgetting  that 
a  Bible  which  shall  enable  us  to  follow  the  inner  life  of  the 
course  of  Eevelation  must  contain,  not  only  words  of  grace 
and  answers  of  faith,  but  as  much  of  the  ordinary  history,  the 
everyday  life,  and  the  current  thoughts  of  the  people  to  whom 
Eevelation  came,  as  will  enable  us  to  enter  into  their  circum- 
stances, and  receive  the  Word  as  they  received  it.  From  this 
point  of  view  we  can  recognise  the  hand  of  a  wise  Providence 
in  the  circumstance  that  the  Old  Testament  contains,  in  far 
larger  proportion  than  the  New,  matter  of  historical  and 
archaeological  interest,  which  does  not  serve  a  direct  purpose 
of  edification.  For,  in  the  study  of  the  New  Testament,  we 
are  assisted  in  the  work  of  historical  interpretation  by  a  large 
contemporary  literature  of  profane  origin,  whereas  we  have 
almost  no  contemporary  helps  for  the  study  of  Hebrew 
antiquity,  beyond  the  books  which  were  received  into  the 
Jewish  Canon.^ 


^  The  Old  Testament  writers  possessed  Hebrew  sources  now  lost,  such  as 
the  Book  of  the  "Wars  of  Jehovah,  the  Book  of  Jashar,  and  the  Annals  of 
the  Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah.  (See  below,  Lectures  V.  and  XI.)  But 
Josephus,  and  other  profane  historians,  whose  writings  are  still  extant,  had  no 


12  THE   HUMAN   SIDE 


The  kind  of  Bible  study  which  I  have  indicated  is  followed 
more  or  less  instinctively  by  every  intelligent  reader.  Every 
Christian  takes  home  words  of  promise,  of  comfort,  or  of 
warning,  by  putting  himself  in  the  place  of  the  first  hearers 
of  the  Word,  and  uses  the  Bible  devotionally  by  borrowing 
the  answ^er  spoken  by  the  faith  of  apostles  or  psalmists.  And 
the  diligent  reader  soon  learns  that  the  profit  of  these  exer- 
cises is  proportioned  to  the  accuracy  with  which  he  can  com- 
pare his  situations  and  needs  with  those  underlying  the  text 
w^hich  he  appropriates.  But  the  systematic  study  of  Scripture 
must  rise  above  the  merely  instinctive  use  of  sound  principles. 
To  get  from  the  Bible  all  the  instruction  which  it  is  capable 
of  yielding,  we  must  apprehend  the  true  method  of  study  in 
its  full  range  and  scope,  obtain  a  clear  grasp  of  the  principles 
involved,  and  apply  them  systematically  with  the  best  help 
that  scholarship  supplies.  Let  us  consider  how  this  is  to  be 
done. 

In  the  Bible,  God  and  man  meet  together,  and  hold  such 
converse  as  is  the  abiding  pattern  and  rule  of  all  religious 
experience.  In  this  simple  fact  lies  the  key  to  all  those 
puzzles  about  the  divine  and  human  side  of  the  Bible  wdth 
which  people  are  so  much  exercised.  We  hear  many  speak 
of  the  human  side  of  the  Bible  as  if  there  were  something 
dangerous  about  it,  as  if  it  ought  to  be  kept  out  of  sight  lest 
it  tempt  us  to  forget  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God.  And 
there  is  a  widespread  feeling  that,  though  the  Bible  no  doubt 

authentic  Hebrew  sources  for  the  canonical  history,  except  those  preserved  in 
the  Bible. 

It  is  only  in  quite  recent  times  that  the  lack  of  contemporary  books 
illustrative  of  the  Old  Testament  period  has  been  partly  supplied  by  the 
discovery  and  decipherment  of  the  monumental  inscriptions  of  Palestine  (the 
Moabite  stone,  the  inscription  of  Siloam,  the  Phoenician  inscriptions)  and  the 
cuneiform  records  of  Babylonia,  Assyria,  and  Persia.  Valuable  as  these 
new  sources  are,  they  touch  only  individual  parts  of  the  Biblical  record.  The 
Egyptian  monuments,  again,  from  which  so  much  was  hoped,  have  hitherto 
given  little  help  for  Bible  history. 


OF    THE    BIBLE  13 


has  a  human  side,  a  safe  and  edifying  exegesis  must  confine 
itself  to  the  divine  side.  This  point  of  view  is  a  survival  of 
the  medii^val  exegesis  which  buried  the  true  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture. Of  course,  as  long  as  you  hold  that  the  whole  worth  of 
Eevelation  lies  in  abstract  doctrines,  supernaturally  communi- 
cated to  the  intellect  and  not  to  the  heart,  the  idea  that  there 
is  a  human  life  in  the  Bible  is  purely  disturbing.  But  if  the 
Bible  sets  forth  the  personal  converse  of  God  with  man,  it  is 
absolutely  essential  to  look  at  the  human  side.  The  prophets 
and  psalmists  were  not  mere  impassive  channels  through 
whose  lips  or  pens  God  poured  forth  an  abstract  doctrine. 
He  spoke  not  only  through  them,  but  to  them  and  in  them. 
They  had  an  intelligent  share  in  the  Divine  converse  with 
them;  and  we  can  no  more  understand  the  Divine  Word 
without  taking  them  into  account  than  we  can  understand  a 
human  conversation  without  taking  account  of  both  inter- 
locutors. To  try  to  suppress  the  human  side  of  the  Bible,  in 
the  interests  of  the  purity  of  the  Divine  Word,  is  as  great  a 
folly  as  to  think  that  a  father's  talk  with  his  child  can  be 
best  reported  by  leaving  out  everything  which  the  child  said, 
thought,  and  felt. 

The  first  condition  of  a  sound  understanding  of  Scripture 
is  to  give  full  recognition  to  the  human  side,  to  master  the 
whole  situation  and  character  and  feelings  of  each  human 
interlocutor  who  has  a  part  in  the  drama  of  Eevelation. 
Nay^  the  whole  husiness  of  scholarly  exegesis  lies  with  this  human 
side.  All  that  earthly  study  and  research  can  do  for  the 
reader  of  Scripture  is  to  put  him  in  the  position  of  tlie  man 
to  whose  heart  God  first  spoke.  What  is  more  than  this  lies 
beyond  our  wisdom.  It  is  only  the  Spirit  of  God  that  can 
make  the  Word  a  living  word  to  our  hearts,  as  it  was  a  living 
word  to  him  who  first  received  it.  This  is  the  truth  which 
the  Westminster  Confession  expresses  wlien  it  teaclies,  in 
harmony  with  all  the  Eeformed  Symbols,  that  our  full  per- 


U  THE   HISTORICAL  lect.  i 

suasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine 
authority  of  Scripture  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  Word  in  our  hearts. 

And  here,  as  we  at  once  perceive,  the  argument  reaches  a 
practical  issue.     We  not  only  see  that  the  principles  of  the 
lieformation  demand  a  systematic  study  of  Scripture  upon 
lines  of  research  wdiich  were  foreign  to  the  Church  before  the 
Eeformation  ;  but  we  are  able  to  fix  the  method  by  which 
such  study  must  be  carried  on.     It  is  our  duty  as  Protestants 
to  interpret  Scripture  historically.     The  Bible  itself  has  a 
history.     It  was  not  written  at  one  time,  or  by  a  single  pen. 
It  comprises  a  number  of  books  and  pieces  given  to  the 
Church  by  many  instrumentalities  and  at  various  times.     It 
is  our  business  to  separate  these  elements  from  one  another, 
to  examine  them  one  by  one,  and  to  comprehend  each  piece 
in  the  sense  which  it  had  for  the  first  writer,  and  in  its  rela- 
tion to  the  needs  of  God's  people  at  the  time  when  it  w^as 
written.     In  proportion  as  we  succeed  in  this  task,  the  mind 
of  the  Eevealer  in  each  of  His  many  communications  with 
mankind  wiU  become  clear  to  us.     We  shall  be  able  to  follow 
His  gracious  converse  with  His  people  of  old  from  point  to 
point.     Instead  of  appropriating  at  random  so  much  of  the 
Word  as  is  at  once  perspicuous,  or  guessing  darkly  at  the 
sense  of  things  obscure,  w^e  shall  learn  to  understand  God's 
teaching  in  its  natural  connection.     By  this  means  we  shall 
be  saved  from  arbitrariness  in  our  interpretations.    For  of  this 
we  may  be  assured,  that  there  was  nothing  arbitrary  in  God's 
plan  of  revelation.     He  spoke  to  the  prophets  of  old,  as  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrew^s  tells  us,  "  in  many  parts  and  in  many 
ways."     There  was  variety  in  the  method  of  His  revelation ; 
and  each  individual  oracle,  taken  by  itself,  w^as  partial  and 
incomplete.     But  none  of  these  things  w^as  wdthout  its  reason. 
The  method  of  revelation  was  a  method  of  education.     God 
spake  to  Israel  as  one  speaks  to  tender  weanlings  (Isa.  xxviii. 


LECT.  I  STUDY    OF    SCRIPTURE  1  5 

9),  giving  precept  after  precept,  line  upon  line,  here  a  little 
and  there  a  little.  He  followed  this  course  that  each  precept, 
as  He  gave  it,  might  be  understood,  and  lay  a  moral  responsi- 
bility on  those  who  received  it  (ver.  13) ;  and  if  our  study 
follows  close  in  the  lines  of  the  divine  teaching,  we  too, 
receiving  the  Word  like  little  children,  shall  be  in  the  riglit 
way  to  understand  it  in  all  its  progress,  and  in  all  the  mani- 
fold richness  of  its  meaning.  But  to  do  so,  I  again  repeat, 
we  must  put  ourselves  alongside  of  the  first  hearers.  What 
was  clear  and  plain  enough  to  the  obedient  heart  then  is  not 
necessarily  clear  and  plain  to  us  now,  if  we  receive  it  in  a 
different  attitude.  God's  word  was  delivered  in  the  lannuaGfe 
of  men,  and  is  not  exempt  from  the  necessary  laws  and  limit- 
ations of  human  speech.  Now  it  is  a  law  of  all  speech,  and 
especially  of  all  speech  upon  personal  matters,  that  the  speaker 
must  express  himself  to  the  understanding  of  his  hearer,  pre- 
supposing in  him  a  certain  preparation,  a  certain  mental 
attitude,  a  certain  degree  of  familiarity  with  and  interest  in 
the  subject.  When  a  third  person  strikes  into  a  conversation, 
he  cannot  follow  it  unless,  as  the  familiar  phrase  has  it,  he 
knows  where  they  are.  So  it  is  with  the  Bible.  And  here 
historical  study  comes  in.  The  mind  of  God  is  unchangeable. 
His  purpose  of  love  is  invariable  from  first  to  last.  The 
manifold  variety  of  Scripture,  the  changing  aspects  of  Bible 
truth,  depend  on  no  change  in  Him,  but  wholly  on  the  vary- 
ing circumstances  and  needs  of  the  men  who  received  the 
Eevelation.  It  is  with  their  life  and  feelings  that  we  must 
get  into  sympathy,  in  order  to  understand  what  God  spoke 
to  them.  We  must  read  the  Bible  as  the  record  of  the 
history  of  grace,  and  as  itself  a  part  of  the  history.  And  this 
we  must  do  with  all  patience,  not  weary  though  our  study 
does  not  at  each  moment  yield  an  immediate  fruit  of  practical 
edification,  if  only  it  conducts  us  on  the  sure  road  to  edifica- 
tion by  carrying  us  along  the  actual  path  trodden  by  God's 


16  OBJECTS    AND    METHOD  lect.  i 

people  of  old ;  if,  opening  to  us  their  needs,  their  hopes,  their 
trials,  even  their  errors  and  sins,  it  enables  our  ears  to  receive 
the  same  voice  which  they  heard  behind  them,  saying,  "  This 
is  the  way;  walk  ye  in  it"  (Isa.  xxx.  21).  It  is  the  glory  of 
the  Bible  that  it  invites  and  satisfies  such  study, — that  its 
manifold  contents,  the  vast  variety  of  its  topics,  the  extra- 
ordinary diversities  of  its  structure  and  style,  constitute  an 
inexhaustible  mine  of  the  richest  historical  interest,  in  which 
generation  after  generation  can  labour,  always  bringing  forth 
some  new  thing,  and  with  each  new  discovery  coming  closer 
to  a  full  understanding  of  the  supreme  wisdom  and  love  of 
Him  who  speaks  in  all  Scripture. 

And  now  let  us  come  to  the  point.  In  sketching  the 
principles  and  aims  of  a  truly  Protestant  study  of  Scripture 
I  have  not  used  the  word  criticism,  but  I  have  been  describ- 
ing the  thing.  Historical  criticism  may  be  defined  without 
special  reference  to  the  Bible,  for  it  is  applicable,  and  is  daily 
applied  without  dispute,  to  every  ancient  literature  and  every 
ancient  history.  The  critical  study  of  ancient  documents 
means  nothing  else  than  the  careful  sifting  of  their  origin  and 
meaning  in  the  light  of  history.  The  first  principle  of 
criticism  is  that  every  book  bears  the  stamp  of  the  time  and 
circumstances  in  which  it  was  produced.  An  ancient  book 
is,  so  to  speak,  a  fragment  of  ancient  life ;  and  to  understand 
it  aright  we  must  treat  it  as  a  living  thing,  as  a  bit  of  the 
life  of  the  author  and  his  time,  which  we  shall  not  fully 
understand  without  putting  ourselves  back  into  the  age  in 
which  it  was  written.  People  talk  much  of  destructive 
criticism,  as  if  the  critic's  one  delight  were  to  prove  that 
things  which  men  have  long  believed  are  not  true,  and  that 
books  were  not  written  by  the  authors  whose  names  they 
bear.  But  the  true  critic  has  for  his  business,  not  to  destroy, 
but  to  build  up.  The  critic  is  an  interpreter,  but  one  who 
has  a  larger  view  of  his  task  than  the  man  of  mere  grammars 


LECT.  I  OF   SOUND   CRITICISM  17 

and  dictionaries, — one  who  is  not  content  to  reproduce  tiie 
words  of  his  author,  but  strives  to  enter  into  sympathy  with 
his  thoughts,  and  to  understand  the  thoughts  as  part  of  the 
life  of  the  thinker  and  of  his  time.  In  this  process  the 
occasional  destruction  of  some  traditional  opinion  is  a  mere 
incident. 

Ancient  books  coming  down  to  us  from  a  period  many 
centuries  before  the  invention  of  printing  have  necessarily 
undergone  many  vicissitudes.     Some  of  them  are  preserved 
only  in  imperfect  copies  made  by  an  ignorant  scribe  of  the 
dark  ages.      Others  have  been   disfigured  by  editors,   who 
mixed  up  foreign  matter  with  the  original  text.     Very  often 
an  important  book  fell  altogether  out  of  sight  for  a  long  time, 
and  when  it  came  to  light  again  all  knowledge  of  its  origin 
was  gone ;  for  old  books  did  not  generally  have  title-pages 
and  prefaces.      And,  when  such  a  nameless  roll  was  again 
brought  into  notice,  some  half- informed  reader  or  transcriber 
was  not  unlikely  to  give  it  a  new  title  of  his  own  devising, 
which  was  handed  down  thereafter  as  if  it  had  been  original. 
Or  again,  the  true  meaning  and  purpose  of  a  book  often 
became  obscure  in  the  lapse  of  centuries,  and  led  to  false 
interpretations.     Once  more,  antiquity  has  handed  down  to 
us  many  writings  which  are  sheer  forgeries,  like  some  of  the 
Apocryphal  books,  or  the  Sibylline  oracles,  or  those  famous 
Epistles  of  Phalaris  which  formed  the  subject  of  Bentley's 
great  critical  essay.     In  all  such  cases  the  historical  critic 
must  destroy  the  received  view,  in  order  to  establish  the 
truth.     He  must  review  doubtful  titles,  purge  out  interpola- 
tions, expose  forgeries ;  but  he  does  so  only  to  manifest  the 
truth,  and  exhibit  the  genuine  remains  of  antiquity  in  their 
real  character.     A  book  that  is  really  old  and  really  valuable 
has  nothing  to  fear  from  the  critic,  whose  labours  can  only 
put  its  worth  in  a  clearer  light,  and  establish  its  authority  on 
a  surer  basis. 


18  PROTESTAXT    AND    CRITICAL  lect.  i 

In  a  word,  it  is  the  business  of  the  critic  to  trace  back 
the  steps  by  wliich  any  ancient  book  has  been  transmitted  to 
us,  to  find  where  it  came  from  and  who  wrote  it,  to  examine 
the  occasion  of  its  composition,  and  search  out  every  link 
that  connects  it  with  the  history  of  the  ancient  world  and 
with  the  personal  life  of  the  author. 

This  is  exactly  what  Protestant  principles  direct  us  to  do 
with  the  several  parts  of  the  Bible.  We  have  to  go  back 
step  by  step,  and  retrace  the  history  of  the  sacred  volume  up 
to  the  first  origin  of  each  separate  writing  which  it  contains. 
In  doing  this  we  must  use  every  light  that  can  be  brought 
to  bear  on  the  subject.  Every  fact  is  welcome,  whether  it 
come  from  Jewish  tradition,  or  from  a  comparison  of  old 
MSS.  and  versions,  or  from  an  examination  of  the  several 
books  with  one  another  and  of  each  book  in  its  own  inner 
structure.  It  is  not  needful  in  starting  to  lay  down  any 
fixed  rules  of  procedure.  The  ordinary  laws  of  evidence  and 
sood  sense  must  be  our  guides.  For  the  transmission  of  the 
Bible  is  not  due  to  a  continued  miracle,  but  to  a  watchful 
Providence  ruling  the  ordinary  means  by  which  all  ancient 
books  have  been  handed  down.  And  finally,  when  we  have 
worked  our  way  back  through  the  long  centuries  which 
separate  us  from  the  age  of  Eevelation,  we  must,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  study  each  writing  and  make  it  speak  for  itself 
on  the  common  principles  of  sound  exegesis.  There  is  no 
discordance  between  the  religious  and  the  scholarly 
methods  of  study.  They  lead  to  the  same  goal;  and  the 
more  closely  our  study  fulfils  the  demands  of  historical 
scholarship,  the  more  fully  will  it  correspond  with  our 
religious  needs. 

I  know  what  is  said  in  answer  to  aU  this.  We  have  no 
objection,  say  the  opponents  of  Biblical  criticism,  to  any 
amount  of  historical  study,  but  it  is  not  legitimate  historical 
study   that   has   produced   the   current   results   of   Biblical 


LECT.  I  METHODS    IDENTICAL  19 

criticism.  These  results,  say  they,  are  based  on  the 
rationalistic  assumption  that  the  supernatural  is  impossible, 
and  that  everything  in  the  Bible  which  asserts  the  existence 
of  a  real  personal  communication  of  God  with  man  is 
necessarily  untrue.  My  answer  to  this  objection  is  very 
simple.  We  have  not  got  to  results  yet ;  I  am  only  laying 
down  a  method,  and  a  method,  as  we  have  seen,  whicli  is  in 
full  accordance  with,  and  imperatively  prescribed  by,  the 
Eeformation  doctrine  of  the  Word  of  God.  We  are  agreed, 
it  appears,  that  the  method  is  a  true  one.  Let  us  go  forward 
and  apply  it ;  and  if  in  the  application  you  find  me  calling 
in  a  rationalistic  principle,  if  you  can  show  at  any  step  in  my 
argument  that  I  assume  the  impossibility  of  the  supernatural, 
or  reject  plain  facts  in  the  interests  of  rationalistic  theories, 
I  will  frankly  confess  that  I  am  in  the  wrong.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  you  must  remember  that  all  truth  is  one,  that  the 
God  who  gave  us  the  Bible  has  also  given  us  faculties  of 
reason  and  gifts  of  scholarship  with  which  to  study  the 
Bible,  and  that  the  true  meaning  of  Scripture  is  not  to  be 
measured  by  preconceived  notions,  but  determined  as  the 
result  of  legitimate  research.  Only  of  this  I  am  sure  at  the 
outset,  that  the  Bible  does  speak  to  the  heart  of  man  in  words 
that  can  only  come  from  God — that  no  historical  research 
can  deprive  me  of  this  conviction,  or  make  less  precious  the 
divine  utterances  that  speak  straight  to  the  heart.  For  the 
language  of  these  w^ords  is  so  clear  that  no  readjustment  of 
their  historical  setting  can  conceivably  change  the  substance 
of  them.  Historical  study  may  throw  a  new  light  on  the 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  first  heard  or  written.  In 
that  there  can  only  be  gain.  But  the  plain,  central,  heartfelt 
truths  that  speak  for  themselves  and  rest  on  their  own  inde- 
feasible worth  will  assuredly  remain  to  us.  No  amount  of 
change  in  the  background  of  a  picture  can  make  white  black 
or  black  white,  though  by  restoriug  the  right  background 


20  BIBLICAL    STUDY 


where  it  has  been  destroyed  the  harmony  and  balance  of  the 
whole  composition  may  be  immeasurably  improved. 

So  it  is  with  the  Bible.  The  supreme  truths  which  speak 
to  every  believing  heart,  the  way  of  salvation  which  is  the 
same  in  all  ages,  the  clear  voice  of  God's  love  so  tender  and 
personal  and  simple  that  a  child  can  understand  it — these 
are  things  which  must  abide  with  us,  and  prove  themselves 
mighty  from  age  to  age  apart  from  all  scientific  study.  But 
those  who  love  the  truth  will  not  shrink  from  any  toil  that 
can  help  us  to  a  fuller  insight  into  all  its  details  and  all  its 
setting  ;  and  those  whose  faith  is  firmly  fixed  on  the  things 
that  cannot  be  moved  will  not  doubt  that  every  new  advance 
in  Biblical  study  must  in  the  end  make  God's  great  scheme 
of  grace  appear  in  fuller  beauty  and  glory. 


LECTUEE   II 

CHRISTIAN   INTEKPKETATION   AND   JEWISH   TRADITION 

At  our  last  meeting,  I  endeavoured  to  convey  to  you  a  general 
conception  of  the  methods  and  objects  of  Biblical  criticism, 
and  to  show  that  the  very  same  rules  for  the  prosecution  of 
this  branch  of  Biblical  study  may  be  derived  either  from  the 
general  principles  of  historical  science  or  from  the  theological 
principles  of  the  Protestant  Keformation.  We  ended  by  see- 
ing that  it  was  the  duty  of  criticism  to  start  with  the  Bible  as 
it  has  been  delivered  to  us,  and  as  it  now  is  in  our  hands,  and 
to  endeavour  to  trace  back  the  history  of  its  transmission,  and 
of  the  vicissitudes  through  which  it  has  passed,  up  to  the  time 
of  the  original  authors,  so  that  we  may  be  able  to  take  an 
historical  view  of  the  origin  of  each  individual  writing  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  of  the  meaning  which  it  had  to  those  who 
first  received  it  and  to  him  who  first  wrote  it. 

For  this  purpose,  in  speaking  to  a  general  audience,  it  is 
necessary  for  me  to  begin  with  the  English  Bible.  The  Eng- 
lish Bible  which  we  are  accustomed  to  use  gives  us  the  Old 
Testament  as  it  was  understood  by  Protestant  scholars  at  the 
beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century.  It  is  not  necessary 
for  our  present  purpose  that  I  should  dwell  upon  the  minor 
differences  which  separate  the  Version  of  1611  from  other 
versions  made  about  the  same  period  or  a  little  earlier. 
Speaking  broadly,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  Authorised 


22  EXEGESIS    OF    THE  lect.  ii 

Version  represents  in  a  very  admirable  manner  the  under- 
standing of  the  Old  Testament  which  had  been  attained  by 
Protestant  scholarship  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  We  are  now  to  look  back  and  inquire  what  are 
the  links  connecting  our  English  Bible  with  the  original 
autographs  of  the  sacred  writers. 

The  Protestant  versions,  of  which  our  Bible  is  one,  were 
products  of  the  Eeformation.  To  a  certain  extent  they  were 
products  of  the  controversy  with  the  Church  of  Eome.  In 
other  words,  there  were  at  that  time  two  main  views  current 
in  Europe,  and  among  the  scholars  of  Europe,  as  to  the  proper 
way  of  dealing  with  the  Bible — as  to  the  canon  of  Scripture, 
the  authentic  text,  and  the  method  of  interpretation.  The 
Pre-Eeformation  exegesis,  with  which  the  Protestants  had  to 
contend,  was  the  natural  descendant  of  the  exegesis  of  the 
Old  Catholic  Church,  as  it  was  formed  in  opposition  to  the 
heretics,  as  far  back  in  part  as  the  second  century  after 
Christ.  At  the  time  of  Luther,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
there  was  no  dispute  between  Protestants  and  Catholics  as  to 
the  authority  of  Scripture ;  both  parties  admitted  that  autho- 
rity to  be  supreme,  but  they  were  divided  on  the  question  of 
the  true  meaning  of  Scripture.  According  to  the  Old  Church, 
on  which  the  Catholic  party  rested,  the  Bible  was  not  clear 
and  intelligible  by  its  own  light  like  an  ordinary  book.  It 
was  taken  for  granted  that  the  use  of  the  Bible  lies  in  those 
doctrines  higher  than  reason,  those  noetic  truths,  as  they  were 
called,  of  a  divine  philosophy,  which  it  contains.  But  the 
earliest  fathers  of  the  Catholic  Church  already  saw  quite 
clearly  that  the  supposed  abstract  and  noetic  truths  did  not 
lie  on  the  surface  of  Scripture.  To  an  ordinary  reader  the 
Bible  appears  something  quite  different  from  a  body  of 
supernatural  mysteries  and  abstract  philosophic  doctrines. 
This  observation  was  made  by  the  Catholic  fathers,  but  it 
did  not  lead  them,  nor  did  it  lead  the  Gnostic  heretics,  with 


LECT.  II  OLD    CATHOLIC    CHURCH  23 

whom  they  ^re^e  engaged  in  controversy,  to  anticipate  the 
great  discovery  of  the  Keformation,  and  to  see  that  the  real 
meaning  of  the  Bible  must  be  its  natural  meaning.  On  the 
contrary,  the  orthodox  and  the  Gnostics  alike  continued  to 
look  in  the  Bible  for  mysteries  concealed  under  the  plain  text 
of  Scripture — mysteries  which  could  only  be  reached  by  some 
form  of  allegorical  interpretation.  Of  course,  the  allegorical 
exegesis  yielded  to  every  party  exactly  those  principles  which 
that  party  desired ;  and  so  the  controversy  between  the 
Gnostics  and  the  Catholic  Church  could  not  be  decided  on 
the  ground  of  the  Bible  alone,  which  both  sides  interpreted 
in  an  equally  arbitrary  manner.  To  tell  the  truth,  it  would 
have  been  very  difficult  indeed  for  Christian  theologians  in 
those  days  to  reach  a  sound  and  satisfactory  exegesis,  con- 
ducted upon  principles  which  we  could  now  accept.  Very 
few  theologians  in  the  churches  of  the  Gentiles  possessed  the 
linguistic  knowledge  necessary  to  understand  the  original  text 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Hebrew  scholars  were  few  and  far 
between,  and  the  Doctors  of  the  Church  were  habitually 
dependent  upon  the  Alexandrian  Greek  translation,  called 
the  Septuagint  or  Version  of  the  Seventy.  To  this  transla- 
tion we  shall  have  to  advert  at  greater  length  by  and  by. 
At  present  it  is  enough  to  say  that  it  was  a  version  composed 
in  Egypt  and  current  among  the  Jews  of  Alexandria  a  con- 
siderable time  before  the  Christian  era,  and  that  it  spread 
contemporaneously  with  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  through 
all  parts  of  Christendom  where  Greek  was  understood.  In 
many  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  this  translation  was  very 
obscure  and  really  did  not  yield  clear  sense  to  any  natural 
method  of  exegesis.  But  indeed,  apart  from  the  disadvantage 
of  being  thrown  back  upon  the  Septuagint,  the  Christians 
could  not  have  hoped  to  understand  the  Old  Testament  better 
than  their  Jewish  contemporaries.  Even  if  they  had  set 
themselves   to   study   the    original   text,   they   would   have 


24  EASTERN   EXEGESIS  lect.  ii 

required  to  take  their  whole  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  Bible 
from  the  Jews,  who  were  the  only  masters  that  could  then 
have  instructed  them  in  the  language  ;  and  in  fact,  while  the 
Western  churches  were  mainly  dependent  on  the  Septuagint, 
and  struck  out  an  independent  line  of  interpretation  on  the 
basis  of  that  version,  the  exegesis  of  the  Oriental  churches 
continued  to  be  largely  guided  by  the  teaching  of  the 
S3magogue.  In  Syria  and  beyond  the  river  Euphrates,  the 
Bible  w^as  interpreted  by  Christian  scholars  who  spoke  Syriac 
— a  language  akin  to  Hebrew — upon  the  methods  of  the 
Jewish  schools  ;  but  by  this  time  the  Jews  themselves  had 
fallen  into  an  abyss  of  artificial  Eabbinical  interpretation, 
from  which  little  true  light  could  be  derived  for  the  under- 
standing of  Scripture.  The  influence  of  the  Jewish  interpret- 
ation wdiich  ruled  in  the  East  can  be  traced,  not  only  in  the 
old  Syriac  translation  called  the  Peshito  (or  Peshitta),  but  in 
j:he  writings  of  later  Syriac  divines.  In  the  Homilies  of 
Aphraates,  for  example,  which  belong  to  the  first  half  of  the 
fourth  century,  we  find  clear  evidence  that  the  Biblical  train- 
ing and  exegetical  methods  of  the  author,  who,  living  in  the 
far  East,  w^as  not  a  Greek  scholar,  were  largely  derived  from 
the  Jewish  doctors ;  and  the  operation  of  the  same  influences 
can  be  followed  far  down  into  the  Middle  Ages.'^ 

Accordingly,  in  the  absence  of  a  satisfactory  and  scientific 
interpretation,  the  conflict  of  opinions  between  the  orthodox 
and  the  heretics  was  decided  on  another  principle.  The 
apostles,  it  w^as  said,  had  received  the  mysteries  of  divine 
truth  from  our  Lord,  and  had  committed  them  in  plain  and 
living  words  to  the  apostolic  churches.  This  is  a  point  to 
wdiich  the  ancient  fathers   constantly  recur.      The  written 

^  See,  especially,  the  Arabic  catena  on  Genesis  published  by  Professor 
Lagarde  in  his  3Iaterialien  zur  Kritik  und  Gcschichte  dcs  Pciitatcuchs  (Leipzig, 
1867)  from  a  Carshunic  MS.  of  the  sixteenth  century.  This  compilation  of  a 
Syriac  scribe  is  full  of  Jewish  traditions,  and  even  in  form,  as  the  editor 
observes,  is  quite  of  the  character  of  a  Jewish  Midrash. 


LECT.  II 


THE    VULGATE  25 


word,  they  say,  is  necessarily  ambiguous  and  difficult,  but 
the  spoken  word  of  the  apostles  was  clear  and  transparent. 
In  the  apostolic  churches,  then,  the  sum  of  true  doctrine  has 
been  handed  down  in  an  accurate  form ;  and  the  consent  of 
the  apostolic  churches  as  to  the  mysteries  of  faith  forms  the 
rule  of  sound  exegesis.  Any  interpretation  of  Scripture,  say 
the  fathers,  is  necessarily  false  if  it  differs  from  the  ecclesiastical 
canon — that  is,  from  the  received  doctrinal  testimony  of 
the  great  apostolic  churches,  such  as  Corinth,  Eome,  and 
Alexandria,  in  wliich  the  teaching  of  the  apostles  still  lived 
as  it  had  been  handed  down  by  oral  tradition.^ 

Such  were  the  principles  of  exegesis  to  which  the  Catholic 
Church  adhered  up  to  the  time  of  the  Preformation.  New 
elements  were  added  from  time  to  time  to  the  body  of 
ecclesiastical  tradition,  and  in  particular  a  very  great  change 
took  place  with  regard  to  the  received  edition  of  the  Old 
Testament.  When  the  theory  of  the  ecclesiastical  canon  was- 
first  formed,  the  churches  of  Europe  read  either  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  Septuagint  or  a  Latin  text  formed  from  tlie 
Septuagint ;  but  about  the  year  400  A.D.,  Jerome,  a  man  of 
unusual  learning  for  that  age,  who  had  studied  under  Jewish 
teachers,  made  a  new  version  direct  from  the  Hebrew,  which 
was  greatly  assailed  at  the  time  as  a  dangerous  innovation, 
but  by  and  by  came  to  be  accepted  in  the  Latin  churches  as 
the  authentic  and  received  edition  of  the  Bible.  When  I  say 
that  Jerome's  version  was  received  by  the  Western  churches, 

1  On  the  liegida  Fidci,  and  its  connection  with  the  ambiguity  of  the 
allegorical  interpretation,  so  keenly  felt  in  controversy  with  heretics,  compare 
Diestel,  Gcschichtc  dcs  aJtcn  Testaments  in  der  Christlichcn  Kirdie,  p.  38 
(Irenteus,  Tertullian),  p.  85  (Augustine).  The  principle  is  clearly  laid  down  by 
Origen  :  "Many  think  that  they  have  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  not  a  few  differ 
from  the  opinions  of  the  earlier  Christians  ;  but  the  preaching  of  the  Church, 
handed  down  in  regular  succession  from  the  Apostles,  still  abides,  and  is 
present  in  the  Church.  Therefore,  the  only  truth  to  be  Itelieved  is  that  which 
in  no  point  departs  from  ecclesiastical  and  apostolical  tradition."  {Princip., 
Praef.%2.) 


26  THE    VULGATE 


it  is  proper  to  observe  that  it  was  not  received  in  all  its  purity, 
and  that  the  text  of  this  Vulgate  or  received  version  (the 
word  vulgate  means  "  currently  received "),  as  it  actually 
existed  in  the  Middle  Ages  and  at  the  time  of  the  Eeforma- 
tion,  was  considerably  modified  by  things  which  had  been 
carried  over  from  the  older  Latin  translations  taken  from  the 
Greek.  Still,  the  Western  Church  supposed  itself  to  receive 
the  version  of  Jerome  as  the  authoritative  and  vulgate  version, 
and  this  new  Vulgate  replaced  the  old  Vulgate,  the  Greek 
Septuagint  translation  made  by  the  Jews  in  Egypt  before  the 
time  of  Christ. 

The  Eeformers,  who  were  well  read  in  church  history, 
sometimes  met  their  opponents  by  pointing  out  that  the 
ecclesiastical  tradition  on  which  the  Catholics  relied  as  the 
proper  norm  or  rule  of  interpretation  had  itself  undergone 
change  in  the  course  -of  centuries,  and  they  often  appealed 
with  success  to  the  earliest  fathers  against  those  views  of 
truth  which  were  current  in  their  own  times.  But  Luther's 
fundamental  conception  of  revelation  made  it  impossible  for 
the  Protestants  to  submit  their  understanding^  of  the  Bible 
even  to  the  earliest  and  purest  form  of  the  ecclesiastical 
canon.  The  ecclesiastical  canon — the  standard  of  doctrinal 
interpretation  based  on  the  supposed  consent  of  the  apostolic 
churches — had,  as  we  have  seen,  been  first  invented  in  order 
to  get  over  the  ambiguities  of  the  allegorical  method  of 
interpretation.  When  Luther  taught  the  people  that  the 
Bible  can  be  understood  like  any  other  book,  that  the  true 
meaning  of  its  words  is  the  natural  sense  which  appeals  to 
ordinary  Christian  intelligence,  it  was  plain  that  for  him  this 
whole  method  of  ecclesiastical  tradition  as  the  rule  of  exegesis 
no  longer  had  any  meaning  or  value. 

The  Church  of  Borne,  after  the  lieformation  began,  took 
up  a  definite  and  formal  battle-ground  against  Protestantism 
in  the  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent.     The  positions  laid 


LECT.  II  THE    COUNCIL    OF    TRENT  27 

down  by  the  Doctors  of  Trent  in  opposition  to  the  movement 
headed  by  Lnther  were  these  : — 

I.  The  supreme  rule  of  faith  and  life  is  contained  in  the 
written  books  and  the  unwritten  traditions  of  Christ  and  liis 
Apostles,  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  handed  down  by 
continual  succession  in  the  Catholic  Church. 

II.  The  canonical  books  are  those  books  in  all  their  parts 
which  are  read  in  the  Catholic  Church  and  contained  in  the 
Latin  Vulgate  version,  the  authenticity  of  which  is  accepted 
as  sufficiently  proved  by  its  long  use  in  the  Catholic 
Church. 

III.  The  interpretation  of  Scripture  must  be  conformed 
to  the  tenets  of  Holy  Mother  Church  and  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  Fathers. 

The  Eeformers  traversed  all  these  three  positions  ;  for 
they  denied  the  validity  of  unwritten  tradition  ;  they  refused 
to  admit  the  authority  of  the  Vulgate,  and  appealed  to  the 
original  text;  and  finally,  they  denied  the  existence  and  still 
more  the  authority  of  the  consent  of  the  Fathers,  and  ad- 
mitted no  principle  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible  that 
would  not  be  sound  if  applied  to  another  book.  They  affirmed 
that  the  reader  has  a  right  to  form  his  own  private  judgment 
on  the  sense  of  Scripture  ;  by  which,  of  course,  they  did  not 
mean  that  one  man's  judgment  is  as  good  as  another's,  but 
only  that  the  sense  of  a  controverted  passage  must  be  decided 
by  argument  and  not  by  authority.  The  one  rule  of  exposi- 
tion which  they  laid  down  as  possessing  authority  for  the 
Church  was  that  in  a  disputed  point  of  doctrine  the  sense  of 
an  obscure  passage  must  be  ruled  by  passages  which  are  more 
plain.  And  this,  as  you  will  easily  observe,  is,  strictly  speak- 
ing, not  a  rule  of  interpretation  but  a  principle  of  theology. 
It  rather  tells  us  which  passage  we  are  to  choose  for  the 
proof  or  disproof  of  any  doctrine  than  helps  us  to  get  the 
exact  sense  of  a  disputed  text.     All  that  it  really  means  is 


AUTHORITY    OF    THE 


this — "  Form  your  doctrines  from  plain  texts,  and  do  not  be 
led  astray  from  the  teaching  of  plain  passages  by  a  meaning 
which  some  one  may  extort  from  an  obscure  one."  So  far  as 
the  principle  is  exegetical,  it  simply  means  that  an  all-wise 
Author — for  to  the  Eeformers  God  is  the  author  of  all  Scrip- 
ture— cannot  contradict  Himself. 

I  need  not  say  more  upon  the  first  and  third  positions  of 
the  Council  of  Trent;  but  the  second  position,  as  to  the 
claims  of  the  standard  Vulgate  edition,  is  a  point  which 
requires  more  attention.  In  making  the  Vulgate  the  standard 
edition,  the  Council  of  Trent  implied  two  things : — (1)  that 
the  Vulgate  contains  all  the  canonical  books  in  their  true 
text ;  and  (2)  that  the  translation,  if  not  perfect,  is  exempt 
from  errors  affecting  doctrine.  The  Eoman  Catholics,  of 
course,  did  not  mean  to  assert  that  in  every  particular  the 
Vulgate  edition  represents  the  exact  text  and  meaning  of  the 
original  writers.  In  justice  to  them,  we  must  say  that  for 
their  contention  that  was  not  necessary,  because  all  along 
what  they  wished  to  get  at  was  not  the  meaning  of  the 
original  writers,  but  the  body  of  doctrine  which  had  the  seal 
of  the  authority  of  the  Church  ;  and  therefore,  from  their 
point  of  view,  the  authenticity  of  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  was 
sufficiently  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  infallible  Church  had 
long  used  that  text  without  finding  any  ground  of  complaint 
against  it;  and  the  authority  of  the  translation,  in  like 
manner,  was  sufficiently  supported  by  the  fact  that  theo- 
logians had  always  been  able  to  deduce  from  it  the  received 
doctrines  of  the  Church.  That,  no  doubt,  was  what  they 
meant.  Nevertheless,  the  two  theses  which  they  laid  down 
were  very  curiously  at  variance  with  what  Jerome,  the 
author  of  the  Vulgate  version,  had  once  and  again  said  about 
the  value  of  his  own  labours.  They  affirmed  that  the  Vulgate 
contained  all  the  canonical  books  and  none  else,  and  that  it 
contained  those  books  in  the  true  text.     Jerome,  on  the  con- 


LATIN    VULGATE  29 


traiy,  in  that  prologue  to  part  of  his  transhition  which  is 
generally  called  the  Prologus  galeatus,  regards  all  books  as 
apocryphal  which  he  did  not  translate  directly  from  the 
Hebrew ;  and,  following  this  rule,  he  excludes  from  the 
canon,  that  is,  from  the  number  of  books  that  possess  authority 
in  matters  of  doctrine,  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus, 
Judith,  Tobit,  Baruch,  and  also  the  two  books  of  the  ]\Iacca- 
bees,  although  he  had  seen  the  first  of  these  in  Hebrew.  The 
Council  of  Trent  accepts  all  these  books  as  canonical,  and 
also  certain  additions  to  Daniel  and  Esther  which  are  not 
found  in  the  Hebrew  text.^ 

The  second  position  of  the  Doctors  of  Trent  also  reads 
curiously  in  the  light  of  Jerome's  own  remarks.  According 
to  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  whole  translation  of  Jerome  is 
accurate  for  all  purposes  of  doctrine,  but  Jerome  in  his  pre- 
faces makes  a  very  different  claim  for  himself  What  he 
says  is  this  :  "  Tf  you  observe  my  version  to  vary  from  the 

1  Prologus  galeatus. — "  This  prologue  may  fit  all  the  books  which  we  have 
translated  from  the  Hebrew.  Books  outside  of  these  are  apocryphal.  There- 
fore the  so-called  "Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  book  of  Jesus  son  of  Sirach,  Judith, 
Tobit,  and  The  Shepherd  are  not  canonical.  The  first  book  of  Maccabees  I 
found  in  Hebrew,  the  second  is  Greek,  as  may  be  proved  from  its  very  idiom. " 

Praef.  in  Jeremiam. — "We  have  passed  by  the  book  of  Baruch,  Jeremiah's 
amanuensis,  which  the  Hebrews  neither  read  nor  possess." 

Praef.  in  Librum  Esther. — "  The  Book  of  Esther  has  unquestionably  been 
vitiated  by  various  translators.  I  have  translated  it  word  for  word  as  it 
stands  in  the  Hebrew  archives." 

Praef.  in  Danielem.  —  '' The  story  of  Susanna,  the  Song  of  the  Three 
Children,  and  the  fables  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  are  not  found  in  the  Hebrew 
Daniel  ;  but  as  they  are  current  throughout  the  world  we  have  added  them  at 
the  end,  marking  them  with  an  obelus,  lest  the  ignorant  should  fancy  us  to 
have  excised  a  great  part  of  the  volume. "  Jerome  adds  an  interesting  account 
of  arguments  against  the  additions  to  Daniel,  which  he  had  heard  from  a 
Jewish  doctor,  leaving  the  decision  to  his  readers. 

Of  the  Apocryphal  books  contained  in  the  English  Authorised  version  of 
1611,  three  are  not  accepted  as  canonical  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  viz.  First 
and  Second  Esdras  (otherwise  called  Third  and  Fourth  Esdras),  and  the 
Prayer  of  ]\Ianasseh.  The  canonicity  of  the  additions  to  Esther  and  Daniel  is 
rightly  held  by  Bellarmiu  to  be  implied  in  the  decree  of  Trent  which  accepts 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  "cum  omnibus  suis  partibus,  prout  in  ecclesia 
catholica  legi  consueverunt."    {Controv.  I.  De  Fcrbo  Dei,  Lib.  i.  capp.  7,  9.) 


30  JEROME    AND 


Greek  or  Latin  copies  in  your  hands,  ask  the  most  trust- 
worthy JeAV  you  can  find,  and  see  if  he  does  not  agree  with 
me."  ^  Once  and  again  Jerome  claims  this,  and  only  this,  for 
his  version,  that  it  ai^^rees  with  the  best  Jewish  tradition ;  in 
other  words,  Jerome  sought  to  correct  the  current  Bibles  of 
his  day  according  to  the  Hebrew  text,  as  the  Jews  of  his 
time  received  it,  and  to  give  an  interpretation  on  a  level 
with  the  best  Jewish  scholarship.  He  did  this  partly  by 
the  aid  of  earlier  translations  from  the  Hebrew  into  the 
Greek  (Aquila,  Theodotion,  but  especially  Symmachus)  made 
after  the  time  of  Christ,  and  more  in  accordance  than  the 
Septuagint  with  the  later  Eabbinical  scholarship ;  ^  and 
partly  by  the  help  of  learned  Jews.  On  one  occasion,  he  tells 
us,  he  brought  a  famous  Eabbi  from  Tiberias  to  instruct  him. 
At  another  time  he  brought  a  Jewish  scholar  from  Lydda  ; 
and  in  particular  he  speaks  of  one  called  Bar  Anina,  a  teacher 
who  came  to  him  by  night  for  fear  of  his  co-religionists, 
while  the  translator  resided  in  Jerusalem  and  Bethlehem.^ 

•■  The  quotation  is  from  the  Prologus  galeatus.  Compare  the  preface  to 
Chronicles  addressed  to  Domnio  and  Rogatianus. 

^  The  version  of  Aquila,  a  Jewish  proselyte  and  disciple  of  the  famous 
Rabbi  Akiba,  was  made  expressly  in  the  interests  of  Jewish  exegesis,  and 
reproduced  with  scrupulous  accuracy  the  received  text  of  the  second 
Christian  century.  Symmachus  and  Theodotion  followed  later,  but  still  in  the 
second  century.  The  former,  according  to  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  was  an 
Ebionite,  one  of  the  sect  of  Jewish  Christians  who  still  held  to  the  observance 
of  the  law,  like  the  opponents  of  Paul.  It  is  uncertain  whether  Theodotion 
was  an  Ebionite  (Jerome),  or  a  proselyte  (Irenteus).  Aquila,  says  Jerome, 
sought  to  rej)roduce  the  Hebrew  word  for  Avord  ;  Symmachus  aimed  at  a  clear 
expression  of  the  sense  ;  while  Theodotion  rather  sought  to  give  a  revised 
edition  not  very  divergent  from  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint.  These  versions 
were  arranged  in  parallel  columns  in  the  Hexapla  of  Origen,  composed  in  the 
first  half  of  the  third  century.  The  fragments  of  them  which  remain  in  Greek 
MSS.  of  the  Septuagint,  in  the  Patristic  literature,  or  in  the  Syriac  transla- 
tion of  the  fifth  column  of  the  Hexapla  made  by  Paul  of  Telia,  in  Alexandria, 
617  A.D.,  are  collected  in  Dr.  Field's  edition,  Origenis  Hexaplorurn  quae 
sitpersunt  (Oxford,  1867-75). 

2  Fraef.  in  Lihrum  Job. — "To  understand  this  book  I  procured,  at  no 
small  cost,  a  doctor  from  Lydda,  who  was  deemed  to  hold  the  first  place 
among  the  Hebrews." 


LECT.  II  HIS    TEACHERS  31 

In  their  earlier  controversies  with  the  Eoman  Catholics, 
the  Protestants  simply  fell  back  upon  these  facts,  quoting 
Jerome  against  the  Council  of  Trent,  as  is  done,  for  example, 
in  the  sixth  of  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England.^  They 
quoted  Jerome,  and  therefore  adopted  his  definition  that  all 
books  which  were  not  extant  in  Hebrew  and  admitted  to  the 
canon  of  the  Jews  in  the  day  of  Jerome  are  apocryphal  and 
not  to  be  cited  in  proof  of  a  disputed  doctrine.  Beyond  that 
they  did  not  care  to  press  the  question  of  the  canon.  There 
were  differences  among  themselves  as  to  the  value  of  the 
Apocrypha  on  the  one  hand,  and  as  to  the  canonicity  of 
Esther  and  some  other  books  of  the  old  canon  upon  the  other. 
But  it  was  enough  for  the  Protestants  in  controversy  with 
Eome  to  be  able  to  refuse  a  proof  text  drawn  from  the 
Apocryphal  books,  upon  the  plain  ground  that  the  authority 
of  these  books  was  challenged  even  by  many  of  the  fathers. 
Thus  Calvin,  in  his  Antidote  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  is 
willing  to  leave  the  question  of  the  canon  open,  contenting 
himself  with  the  observation  that  the  intrinsic  qualities  of 
the  Apocryphal  books  display  a  manifest  inferiority  to  the 
canonical  writings.^ 

Pracf.  ill  Chron.  ad  D.  et  R.  —  "When  your  letters  reached  me,  asking  a 
Latin  A'crsion  of  Chronicles,  I  got  a  doctor  of  Tiberias,  in  high  esteem  among 
the  Hebrews,  and  with  him  collated  everything,  as  the  proverb  goes,  from  the 
crown  of  the  head  to  the  tip  of  the  nails.  Thus  confirmed,  I  have  ventured 
to  comply  with  your  request."  Bar  Anina  is  named  in  Epist.  84.  Jerome 
never  gained  such  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  as  gave  him  confidence  to  dispense 
with  the  aid  of  the  Jews. 

1  The  passage  quoted  in  Art.  YI.  is  from  Praef.  in  libros  Salomonis. — "As 
the  Church  reads  Judith,  Tobit,  and  the  books  of  Maccabees,  but  does  not 
receive  them  among  the  canonical  Scriptures,  so  let  her  read  these  two  books 
[Ecclesiasticus  and  the  "Wisdom  of  Solomon]  for  the  edification  of  the  laity, 
but  not  to  confirm  the  authority  of  ecclesiastical  doctrines." 

-  "  On  their  promiscuous  acceptance  of  all  books  into  the  Canon,  I  will 
say  no  more  than  that  herein  they  depart  from  the  consensus  of  the  early 
Church.  For  it  is  known  what  Jerome  reports  as  the  common  judgment  of 
the  ancients.  ...  I  am  not  aware,  however,  that  the  decree  of  Trent  agrees 
with  the  third  CEcumenical  Council,  which  Augustine  follows  in  his  book  De 
Dodrina  Christiamc.     But  as  Augustine  testifies  that  all  were  not  agreed  upon 


32  HEBREW    LEARNING  lect.  ti 

On  the  question  of  the  true  interpretation  of  Scripture 
they  had  much  more  to  say.  The  revival  of  letters  in  the 
fifteenth  century  had  raised  a  keen  interest  in  ancient  lan- 
guages, and  scholars  who  had  mastered  Greek  as  well  as 
Latin  were  ambitious  to  add  to  their  knowledge  a  third 
learned  tongue,  viz.  the  Hebrew.  At  first  this  ambition 
met  with  many  difficulties.  The  original  text  of  the  Old 
Testament  w^as  preserved  only  among  the  scholars  of  the 
Synagogue.  It  was  impossible  to  learn  Hebrew  except  from 
Jewish  teachers ;  and  orthodox  Jews  refused  to  teach  men 
who  were  not  of  their  own  faith.  Gradually,  however,  these 
obstacles  were  surmounted.  Towards  the  close  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  Hebrew  Bibles  began  to  be  printed,  and  some  know- 
ledge of  the  Hebrew  tongue  became  disseminated  to  a  con- 
siderable extent ;  and  at  length,  in  the  year  1506,  John 
Eeuchlin,  the  great  supporter  of  Hebrew  studies  north  of  the 
Alps,  put  forth  in  Latin  his  Rudiments  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage. This  Latin  work,  which  was  something  of  the  nature 
of  both  grammar  and  dictionary,  was  almost  entirely  taken 
from  the  Hebrew  manuals  of  the  famous  Jewish  scholar  and 
lexicographer,  Eabbi  David  Kimhi,  who  flourished  about  the 
year  1200  a.d.  As  soon  as  Christians  w^ere  furnished  in  this 
way  with  text-books,  the  new  learning  spread  rapidly.  It 
ran  over  Europe  just  at  the  time  when  the  Reformation  was 
spreading,  and  the  Eeformers,  always  keenly  alive  to  the  best 
and  most  modern  learning  of  their  time,  read  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  original  Hebrew,  and  often  found  occasion  to 
differ  from  Jerome's  version.  Observe,  tliey  agreed  with 
Jerome  in  principle.  They,  like  him,  aimed  only  at  render- 
ing the  text  as  the  best  Hebrew  scholars  would  do,  and  to 
them,  as  to  him,  the  standard  of  scholarship  was  that  of  the 

the  mattei-  in  liis  time,  let  this  point  be  left  open.  But  if  arguments  are  to 
be  drawn  from  the  books  themselves,  there  are  many  proofs,  besides  their 
idiom,  that  they  ought  to  take  a  lower  place  than  the  fathers  of  Trent  award 
to  them,"  etc.     Compare  the  statement,  Institut.  iv.  9,  §  14. 


LECT.  II  OF   THE    REFORMERS  33 

most  learned  Jews.  But  when  Jerome  wrote,  there  was 
no  such  thing  in  existence  as  a  Hebrew  grammar  and  dic- 
tionary ;  there  w^ere  no  w^ritten  commentaries  to  which  a 
Christian  scholar  had  access.  The  Eeformers  had  the  text- 
book of  Eeuchlin,  the  grammar  and  lexicon  of  Kimhi,  the 
commentaries  of  many  Eabbins  of  the  Middle  Ages,  with 
other  helps  denied  to  Jerome,  and  therefore  they  knew  that 
their  new  learning  put  them  in  a  position  to  criticise  his 
work.  Often,  indeed,  they  undervalued  Jerome's  labours, 
and  this  ultimately  led  to  controversies  between  Protestants 
and  Catholics,  which  w^ere  fruitful  of  instruction  to  both 
sides.  But,  on  the  whole,  the  Eeforming  scholars  did  know 
Hebrew  better  than  Jerome,  and  their  versions,  including  our 
English  Bible,  approached  much  more  nearly  than  his  to  the 
ideal  common  to  both, — wdiich  was  to  give  the  sense  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  it  was  understood  by  the  best  Jewish 
scholars.  Of  course,  the  Jewish  authorities  themselves  some- 
times differed  from  one  another.  In  such  cases,  the  Pro- 
testants leant  sometimes  on  one  authority,  sometimes  on 
another.  Luther  was  much  influenced  (through  Nicolaus  de 
Lyra)  by  the  commentaries  of  E.  Solomon  of  Troyes,  gener- 
ally called  Eashi,  who  died  1105  a.d.  Our  Bible  is  mainly 
guided  by  the  grammar  and  lexicon  of  the  later  scholar, 
E.  David  Kimhi  of  Narbonne,  who  has  already  been  men- 
tioned as  the  author  of  the  most  current  text-books  of  the 
Hebrew  language.  But  the  point  which  I  wish  you  to 
observe  is  that  the  Eeformers  and  their  successors,  up  to  the 
time  when  all  our  Protestant  versions  were  fixed,  were  in  the 
hands  of  the  Eabbins  in  all  matters  of  Hebrew  scholarship. 
Their  object  in  the  sixteenth  century,  like  Jerome's  in  the 
fourth,  was  simply  to  give  to  the  vulgar  the  fruit  of  the  best 
Jewish  learning,  applied  to  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures 
received  among  the  Jews. 

It  may  be  asked  why  the  Eeformers  stopped  here.     But 

3 


34  SCHOLARSHIP    OF    THE  lect.  ii 

the  answer  is  clear  enougli.  They  went  as  far  as  the  scholar- 
ship of  the  age  would  carry  them.  All  sound  Hebrew 
learning  then  resided  with  the  Jewish  doctors,  and  so  the 
Protestant  scholars  became  their  disciples. 

But  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  men  who 
refused  to  accept  the  authority  of  Christian  tradition  as  to  the 
number  of  books  in  the  canon,  the  best  text  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, or  the  principles  upon  which  that  text  is  to  be  trans- 
lated, adopted  it  as  a  principle  of  faith  that  the  Jewish  tradi- 
tion upon  all  these  points  is  final.  Luther  again  and  again 
showed  that  he  submitted  to  no  such  authority ;  and  if  the 
Eeformers  and  their  first  successors  practically  accepted  the 
results  of  Jewish  scholarship  upon  all  these  questions,  they 
did  so  merely  because  these  results  were  in  accordance  with 
the  best  lights  then  attainable.  It  was  left  for  a  later  gener- 
ation, which  had  lost  the  courage  of  the  first  Eeformers 
because  it  had  lost  much  of  their  clear  insight  into  divine 
things,  to  substitute  an  authoritative  Jewish  tradition  for  the 
authoritative  tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church — to  swear  by 
the  Jewish  canon  and  the  Massoretic  text  as  the  Eomanists 
swore  by  the  Tridentine  canon  and  the  Vulgate  text.  The 
Eeformers  had  too  much  reverence  for  God's  Word  to  subject 
it  to  the  bondage  of  any  tradition.  They  would  gladly  have 
accepted  any  further  light  of  learning,  carrying  them  back 
behind  the  time  of  Eabbinical  Judaism  to  the  first  ages  of 
the  Old  Testament  writings. 

Scholarship  moved  onwards,  and  as  research  was  carried 
farther  it  gradually  became  plain  that  it  was  possible  for 
Biblical  students,  with  the  material  still  preserved  to  them, 
to  get  behind  the  Jewish  Eabbins,  upon  whom  our  translators 
were  still  dependent,  and  to  draw  from  the  sacred  stream  at 
a  point  nearer  its  source.  I  have  now  to  explain  how  this 
was  seen  to  be  the  case. 

From  the  time  when  the  Old  Testament  was  written, 


LECT.  II  JEWISH    llABBINS  35 

down  to  the  sixteenth  century,  there  was  no  continuous 
tradition  of  sound  Hebrew  learning  except  among  the  Jews. 
The  little  that  Cliristians  knew  about  the  Old  Testament  at 
first  hand  had  ahvays  come  from  the  Eabbins.  Among  the 
Jew^s,  on  the  contrary,  there  was  a  continuous  scholarly  tradi- 
tion. The  knowledge  of  Hebrew^  and  the  most  received  ways 
of  explaining  the  Old  Testament  were  handed  down  from 
generation  to  generation  along  with  the  original  text.  I  ask 
you  to  understand  precisely  what  this  means.  Before  the 
time  of  Christ,  the  Jews  had  already  ceased  to  speak  Hebrew. 
In  the  New  Testament,  no  doubt,  we  read  once  and  again  of 
the  Hebrew  tongue  as  spoken  and  understood  by  the  people 
of  Palestine  ;  but  the  vernacular  of  the  Palestinian  Jews  in 
the  first  century  was  a  dialect  as  unlike  to  that  of  the 
Bible  as  German  is  to  Ensflish — a  different  lancijuafTe,  although 
a  kindred  one.  This  language  is  called  Hebrew  because  it 
was  spoken  by  the  Hebrews,  just  as  the  Spanish  Jews  in 
Constantinople  at  the  present  day  call  their  Spanish  jargon 
Hebrew.  It  was  a  form  of  Western  Aramaic,  which  the 
Jews  had  gradually  substituted  for  the  tongue  of  their  ances- 
tors, after  their  return  from  captivity,  when  they  found  them- 
selves a  small  handful  living  in  the  midst  of  nations  wdio 
spoke  Aramaic,  and  wdth  wdiom  they  had  constant  dealings. 
In  those  days  Aramaic  was  the  language  of  business  and  of 
government  in  the  countries  between  the  Euphrates  and  the 
Mediterranean,  just  as  English  is  in  the  Highlands  of  Scot- 
land, and  so  the  Jew^s  forgot  their  own  tongue  for  it,  as  the 
Scottish  Celts  are  now  forgetting  Gaelic  for  English.  This 
process  had  already  gone  on  to  a  great  extent  before  the  latest 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  completed.^     Such  writers 

^  On  the  assumption  that  the  Aramaic  part  of  Daniel  was  written  in 
Chaldsea  by  Daniel  himself,  the  Biblical  Aramaic  used  to  be  called  Chaldee, 
and  it  was  supposed  that  the  Jews  forgot  their  old  tongue  and  learned  that  of 
Chaldsea  during  the  Captivity.  It  is  now  known  that  this  opinion  is  alto- 
gether false.     The  Aramaic  dialect  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine,  of  which  the 


3  6  SCHOLARSHIP    OF    THE  lect.  ii 

as  the  authors  of  Chronicles  and  Ecclesiastes  still  use  the  old 
language  of  Israel  for  literary  purposes,  but  in  a  way  which 
sliows  that  their  thoughts  often  ran  not  in  Hebrew  but  in 
Aramaic.  They  use  Aramaic  words  and  idioms  which  would 
have  puzzled  Moses  and  David,  and  in  some  of  the  later  Old 
Testament  books,  in  Ezra  and  in  Daniel,  although  not  in 
those  parts  of  the  former  book  which  are  autobiographical 
and  written  by  Ezra  himself,  there  actually  are  inserted  in 
the  Hebrew  long  Aramaic  passages.  Before  the  time  of 
Christ,  people  who  were  not  scholars  had  ceased  to  under- 
stand Hebrew  altogether  ;^  and  in  the  synagogue,  when  the 
Bible  was  read,  a  Meturgeman,  as  he  was  called,  that  is,  a 
"  dragoman,"  or  qualified  translator,  had  to  rise  and  give  the 
sense  of  the  passage  in  the  vulgar  dialect.  The  Pentateuch 
was  read  verse  by  verse,  or  in  lessons  from  the  Prophets 
three  verses  were  read  together,  and  then  the  Meturgeman 
rose,  and  did  not  read,  but  give  orally  in  Aramaic  the  sense 
of  the  original.^     The  old  Hebrew,  then,  was  by  this  time  a 

so-called  Clialdee  parts  of  Ezra  and  Daniel  are  the  oldest  monuments,  is  not 
Babylonian,  but  Western  in  character,  as  appears  unmistakably  by  compari- 
son with  the  Aramaic  monuments  of  other  districts  west  of  the  Euphrates. 
Peculiarities,  for  example,  which  used  to  be  characterised  as  Hebraisms, 
reappear  on  the  Palmyrene  and  Nabatsean  inscriptions.  The  Jews,  therefore, 
lost  their  Hebrew,  and  learned  Aramaic  in  Palestine  after  the  return.  They 
certainly  still  spoke  Hebrew  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  whose  indignation 
against  the  contamination  of  the  Jewish  speech  by  the  dialect  of  Ashdod 
(Neh.  xiii.  24)  is  quite  unintelligible  on  any  other  supposition.  Compare  for 
the  whole  subject  Noldeke's  article,  Semitic  Languages,  in  the  ninth  edition 
of  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica. 

^  See  the  evidence  of  this  from  the  Rabbinical  literature  in  Zunz's  Gottes- 
dienstliche  Vortrdge  der  Juden,  p.  7  (Berlin,  1832).  Our  Lord  upon  the  cross 
quoted  Ps.  xxii,  in  a  Targum. 

-  Mishna,  Megilla,  iv.  4. — *'He  who  reads  in  the  Pentateuch  must  not 
read  to  the  ^leturgeman  more  than  one  verse,  and  in  the  prophets  three 
verses.  If  each  verse  is  a  paragraph,  they  are  read  one  by  one.  The  reader 
may  skip  in  the  prophets,  but  not  in  the  law.  How  long  may  he  spend  in 
searching  for  another  passage  ?  So  long  as  the  Meturgeman  goes  on  speaking. " 
The  practice  of  oral  translation  into  Aramaic  led  ultimately  to  the  formation  of 
written  Targums  or  Aramaic  paraphrases  ;  but  these  were  long  discouraged  by 
the  Scribes. 


LECT.  II  JEWISH    RABBINS  3  7 

learned  language,  acquired  not  in  common  life  but  from  a 
teacher.  In  order  to  learn  it,  the  young  Jew  had  to  go  to 
school,  but  he  had  no  grammar  or  lexicon,  or  other  written 
help,  to  assist  him.  Everything  was  done  by  oral  instruction, 
and  by  dint  of  sheer  memory,  without  any  scientific  principle. 
In  the  first  place,  the  pupil  had  to  learn  to  read.  In  our 
Hebrew  Bibles  now,  the  pronunciation  of  each  word  is 
exactly  represented.  This  is  done  by  a  double  notation. 
The  letters  proper  are  the  consonants,  and  the  vowels  are 
indicated  by  small  marks  placed  above  or  below  the  line  of 
the  consonants.  These  small  marks  are  a  late  invention. 
They  did  not  exist  in  the  time  of  Christ,  or  even  four  hundred 
years  after  the  Christian  era,  at  the  time  of  Jerome.^  Before 
this  invention  the  proper  pronunciation  of  each  difficult  word 
had  to  be  acquired  from  a  master.  When  a  pupil  had  learned 
to  read  a  phrase  correctly,  he  was  taught  the  meaning  of  the 
words,  and  by  such  exercises,  combined  with  the  practice  of 
constantly  speaking  Hebrew,  which  was  kept  up  in  the  Jewish 
schools,  as  the  practice  of  speaking  Latin  used  to  be  kept  up 

^  The  structure  of  the  Semitic  languages  makes  it  much  easier  to  dispense 
with  the  vowels  than  an  English  reader  might  suppose.  The  chief  difficulty 
lay  with  vowels,  or  still  more  with  dijihthongs,  at  the  end  of  a  word,  and  was 
met  at  a  very  early  date  by  the  use  of  weak  consonants  to  indicate  cognate 
vowel-sounds  (e. (7.  "\V=au,  u;  Y  =  ai,  i).  Such  vowel-consonants  are  found 
even  on  the  stone  of  Mesha,  and  have  been  adopted  in  various  measure,  not 
only  in  Hebrew,  but  in  Syriac  and  Arabic.  But  in  all  these  languages  tlie 
plan  of  marking  every  vowel-sound  by  points  above  or  below  the  line  came 
in  comparatively  late,  was  developed  slowly,  and  never  extended  to  all  books. 
The  testimonies  of  the  Talmudists  and  of  Jerome  are  quite  express  to  show 
that  at  their  time  the  true  vocalisation  of  ambiguous  words  was  known  only 
by  oral  teaching.  Jerome,  for  example,  says  that  in  Hab.  iii,  5  the  Hebrew 
has  only  D,  B,  and  R,  without  any  vowel,  which  maybe  read  either  as  dnbar, 
"word,"  or  debcr,  "plague."  A  supposed  interest  of  orthodoxy  long  led  good 
scholars  like  the  Buxtorfs  to  fight  for  the  antiquity  and  authority  of  the 
points.  There  is  now  no  question  on  the  subject ;  for  MSS.  brought  from 
Southern  Russia  and  Arabia,  containing  a  different  notation  for  the  vowels, 
prove  that  our  present  system  is  not  only  comparatively  recent,  but  is  the 
outcome  of  a  gradual  process,  in  which  several  methods  were  tried  in  different 
parts  of  the  Jewish  world.  The  rolls  read  in  the  synagogue  are  still  un- 
pointed, a  relic  of  the  old  condition  of  all  MSS.     Compare  Lect.  HI.  p.  58  sq. 


38  SCHOLAESHIP    OF    THE  lect.  ii 

in  our  grammar  schools,  the  pupil  gradually  learned  to  under- 
stand the  sacred  texts  and  at  the  same  time  acquired  a 
certain  practical  fluency  in  speaking  or  writing  a  degraded 
form  of  Hebrew,  with  many  barbarous  words  and  still  more 
barbarous  constructions,  such  as  are  certain  to  creep  into  any 
language  which  is  dead  in  ordinary  life  and  yet  is  daily  used 
by  teachers  and  learners,  not  as  a  mere  philological  exercise 
but  as  a  vehicle  of  practical  instruction  in  law,  theology,  and 
the  like.  The  Jews  themselves  recognised  the  difterence 
between  this  pedantic  jargon  and  the  language  of  their 
ancient  books.  The  language  of  the  Bible  was  called  "  the 
holy  tongue,"  while  the  Hebrew  spoken  in  the  schools  was 
called  "  the  language  of  the  wise."  We  have  many  volumes 
of  the  composition  of  these  scholars,  chiefly  legal  works,  with 
some  old  midrashim,  as  they  are  called,  or  sermonising  com- 
mentaries on  Scripture.  These  books  no  doubt  are  Hebrew 
in  a  certain  sense,  but  they  are  as  unlike  to  the  Biblical 
Hebrew  as  a  lawyer's  deed  is  to  a  x^age  of  Cicero.  The  men 
wdio  wrote  such  a  jargon  could  not  have  any  delicate  percep- 
tion for  the  niceties  of  the  old  classical  language,  especially 
as  it  is  written  in  the  most  ancient  books ;  and  when  they 
came  to  a  difficult  passage  they  could  only  guess  at  the  sense, 
unless  they  possessed  an  interpretation  of  the  hard  text,  and 
the  hard  words  it  contained,  handed  down  to  them  from  some 
older  scholar. 

Now  let  me  ask  you  once  more  to  realise  precisely  how 
these  scribes,  at  and  before  the  time  of  Christ,  proceeded  in 
dealing  with  the  Bible.  They  had  nothing  before  them  but 
the  bare  consonantal  text,  so  that  the  same  words  might  often 
be  read  and  interpreted  in  two  different  ways.  A  familiar 
example  of  this  is  given  in  Heb.  xi.  21,  where  we  read  of 
Jacob  leaning  upon  the  top  of  his  "  staff ;  "  but  when  we  turn 
to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  as  it  is  now  printed  (Genesis  xlvii.  31), 
we  there  find  nothing  about  the  "  staff ; "  we  find  the  "  bed." 


JEWISH    RABBINS  39 


Well,  the  Hebrew  for  "tlie  bed"  is  "HaMmiTtaH,"  while 
the  Hebrew  for  "the  staff"  is  '' HaMmaTteH."  The  con- 
sonants in  these  two  words  are  the  same;  the  vowels  are 
different ;  but  the  consonants  only  were  written,  and  doubled 
consonants  were  written  only  once,  so  that  all  that  appeared 
in  jMSS.  was  HMTH.  Tluis  it  was  quite  possible  for  one 
person  to  read  the  word  as  "  bed,"  as  the  translators  of  our 
English  Bible  did,  following  the  reading  of  the  Hebrew 
scribes,  and  for  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  understand  it  as  a  "staff,"  following  the 
interpretation  of  the  Greek  Septuagint. 

Beyond  the  bare  text,  which  in  this  way  was  often 
ambiguous,  the  scribes  had  no  guide  but  oral  teaching.  They 
had  no  rules  of  grammar  to  go  by  ;  the  kind  of  Hebrew 
which  tliey  themselves  wrote  often  admitted  grammatical 
constructions  which  the  old  language  forbade,  and  when  they 
came  to  an  obsolete  word  or  idiom,  they  depended  on  their 
masters  to  give  them  the  pronunciation  and  the  sense.  Now, 
beyond  doubt,  the  Jewish  scholars  were  most  exact  and  re- 
tentive learners,  and  their  teachers  spared  no  pains  to  teach 
them  all  that  they  knew.  We  in  the  West  have  little  idea  of 
the  precision  with  which  an  Eastern  pupil  even  now  can  take 
up  and  remember  the  minutest  details  of  a  lesson,  reproducing 
them  years  afterwards  in  the  exact  words  of  his  master.  But 
memory,  even  when  cultivated  as  it  is  cultivated  in  the 
schools  of  the  East,  is  at  best  fallible ;  and  even  if  we  could 
suppose  til  at  the  whole  of  the  Bible  had  been  taught  word 
by  word  in  the  schools,  in  unbroken  succession  from  the  day 
on  which  each  book  w^as  first  written,  it  would  still  have 
required  a  continued  miracle  to  preserve  all  these  lessons 
perfectly,  and  without  writing,  through  long  generations. 
But  in  point  of  fact  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Jews  was 
neither  complete,  nor  continuous  from  the  first,  nor  uniform. 

It  was  not  complete ;  that  is,  there  never  was  an  authori- 


40  TRADITIONAL   EXEGESIS  lect.  ii 

tative  interpretation  of  the  whole  Bible.  It  was  not  continuous  ; 
that  is,  many  interpretations,  which  attained  general  currency 
and  authority,  had  not  been  received  by  unbroken  tradition 
from  the  time  when  the  passage  was  first  written,  or  even 
from  the  time  when  Hebrew  became  a  dead  language,  but 
were  mere  fisjments  of  the  Eabbins  devised  out  of  their  own 
heads.  And  finally,  the  Eabbinical  tradition  was  not  uniform  ; 
that  is,  the  interpretation  and  even  the  reading  of  individual 
texts  was  often  a  subject  of  controversy  in  the  schools  of  the 
Scribes,  and  at  different  times  we  find  different  interpreta- 
tions in  the  ascendant.  The  proof  of  these  propositions  lies 
partly  in  the  records  of  Jewish  learning  still  preserved  in  the 
Eabbinical  literature ;  partly  it  lies  in  the  translations  and 
interpretations  made  at  various  times  by  Jewish  scholars  or 
under  their  guidance. 

So  long  as  the  transmission  and  interpretation  of  the 
Bible  were  left  to  the  unregulated  labours  of  individual 
scholars  or  copyists,  it  is  plain  that  individual  theories  and 
individual  errors  would  have  some  influence  on  the  work.  The 
Bible  had  to  be  copied  by  the  pen.  Let  us  suppose  then  that 
the  copyist,  without  any  special  instruction  or  guide,  simply 
sat  down  to  make  a  transcript,  probably  writing  from  dicta- 
tion, of  a  roll  which  he  had  bought  or  borrowed.  In  the 
first  place,  he  was  almost  certain  to  make  some  slips,  either 
of  the  pen  or  of  the  ear ;  but  besides  this,  in  all  probability 
the  volume  before  him  would  contain  slips  of  the  previous 
copyist.  "Was  he  to  copy  these  mistakes  exactly  as  they 
stood,  and  so  perpetuate  the  error,  or  would  he  not  in  very 
many  cases  think  himself  able  to  detect  and  correct  the  slips 
of  his  predecessor  ?  If  he  took  the  latter  course,  it  was  very 
possible  for  him  to  overrate  his  own  capacity  and  introduce 
a  new  mistake.  And  so  bit  by  bit,  if  there  were  no  control, 
if  each  scribe  acted  independently,  and  without  the  assistance 
of  a  regular  school,  errors  were  sure  to  be  multiplied,  and  the 


LECT.  II  OF   THE    JEWS  41 

text  would  be  certain  to  present  many  variations.  Thus  we 
know  that  even  in  recent  times  the  Gaelic  version  of  the  Old 
Testament  contains  certain  alterations  upon  the  original  text 
made  in  order  to  remove  seeming  contradictions.  ]\Iuch  more 
were  such  changes  to  be  anticipated  in  ancient  times,  when 
there  was  a  far  less  developed  sense  of  responsibility  with 
regard  to  the  exact  verbal  transcription  of  old  texts.  A 
uniform  and  scrupulous  tradition,  watching  over  tlie  reading 
and  the  meaning  of  the  text  in  all  parts  of  the  Jewish  world, 
could  only  be  transmitted  by  a  regular  school  of  learned 
doctors,  or,  as  the  Jewish  records  call  them,  Scribes,  in  Hebrew 
Sdpherim  or  men  of  the  book — men  who  were  professionally 
occupied  with  the  book  of  the  law. 

We  are  all  familiar  with  the  Scribes,  or  professed  Biblical 
scholars,  as  they  appear  in  the  New  Testament.  They  were 
not  merely,  or  primarily,  verbal  scholars,  but,  above  all  things, 
practical  lawyers  and  theologians,  who  used  their  linguistic 
knowledge  to  support  their  own  doctrines  and  principles. 
Their  principles  at  that  epoch,  as  we  know,  were  those  of  the 
Pharisees  ;  in  fact,  the  Pharisees  were  nothing  else  than  the 
party  of  the  Scribes,  in  opposition  to  the  Sadducees  or  aristo- 
cratic party,  whose  heads  were  the  higher  priestly  nobility. 
To  the  Pharisees,  or  party  of  the  Scribes,  belonged  the  great 
mass  of  Jewish  scholars  who  were  not  closely  associated  with 
the  higher  ranks  of  the  priesthood,  together  with  many  who, 
without  being  scholars,  were  eager  to  obey  the  law  as  tlie 
Scribes  interpreted  it.  The  Scribes  were  the  men  who  had 
in  their  hands  the  transmission  and  interpretation  of  the  Old 
Testament ;  and  our  next  task,  in  endeavouring  to  understand 
the  steps  by  which  the  Old  Testament  has  been  handed  down 
to  us,  must  be  to  obtain  a  clear  vision  of  their  methods  and 
objects,  and  of  the  work  which  they  actually  did  upon  the 
text  of  the  Bible.  This  subject  will  occupy  our  attention 
in  the  next  Lecture. 


LECTUEE  III 


THE   SCEIBES 


The  subject  with  winch  we  are  to  be  occupied  to-day  is  the 
part  that  was  played  by  the  Scribes  in  the  preservation  and 
transmission  of  the  Old  Testament.  At  the  close  of  last 
Lecture  we  looked  for  a  moment  at  the  Scribes  as  they  appear 
in  the  E'ew  Testament  in  association  wdth  the  Pharisees.  At 
that  time,  as  one  sees  from  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  they 
constituted  a  party  long  established,  and  exercising  a  great 
and  recognised  influence  in  the  Jewish  state.  In  fact  they 
can  be  traced  back  as  far  as  the  later  times  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Their  father  is  Ezra,  "  the  Scribe,"  as  he  is  called  'par 
excellence,  who  came  from  Babylon  to  Judaea  with  the  law  of 
God  in  his  hand  (Ezra  vii.  14),  and  with  a  heart  "  prepared 
to  study  the  law  of  the  Lord,  to  do  it,  and  to  teach  in  Israel 

^  For  the  history  of  the  period  covered  by  this  Lecture  the  best  and  most 
complete  book  is  Schlirer,  Gcsch.  des  Jiidischen  VolJces  im  Zcitaltcr  Jcsu 
Christi,  2  vols.,  Leipzig,  1886,  1890  (also  in  an  English  translation),  where  a 
full  account  of  the  literature  of  the  subject  will  be  found.  More  popular  and 
very  useful  is  W.  D.  Morrison,  The  Jews  under  Roman  Rule,  in  the  "Story 
of  the  Nations"  Series  (2d  ed.,  London,  1891).  Wellhausen's  monograph. 
Die  Pharisder  und  die  Sadducdcr  (Greifswald,  1874),  and  the  later  chapters 
of  Kuenen's  Religion  of  Israel  (Eng.  trans.,  vol.  iii.,  London,  1875),  may  also 
be  specially  recommended  to  the  student ;  and  among  works  b}'-  Jewish 
authors,  J.  Derenbourg,  Essai  sur  Vhistoire  .  .  .  dela  Palestine  (Paris,  1867). 
The  oldest  and  most  important  traditions  about  the  early  Scribes  are  found  in 
the  Mishnic  treatise  Aboth,  which  has  been  edited,  with  an  English  version 
and  notes,  by  Dr.  C.  Taylor  {Sayings  of  the  Jewish  Fathers,  Cambridge,  1877), 
and  with  German  notes  by  Prof.  H.  Strack  (Leipzig,  1882). 


EZRA   THE   SCRIBE  43 


statutes  and  judgments  "  (Ezra  vii.  10).  Ezra  accomplished 
this  task,  not  immediately,  but  with  ultimate  and  complete 
success.  He  did  so  with  the  support  of  the  Persian  king, 
and  with  the  active  assistance  of  Nehemiah,  who  had  been 
sent  by  Artaxerxes  as  governor  of  Jerusalem.  At  a  great 
public  meeting  convened  by  Nehemiah,  of  which  we  read  an 
account  in  chapters  viii.  to  x.  of  the  book  which  bears  his 
name,  the  Law  was  openly  read  before  the  people  at  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  and,  with  confession  and  penitence,  the 
Jews  entered  into  a  national  covenant  to  make  that  law 
henceforth  the  rule  of  their  lives.  Now  I  do  not  ask  at  pre- 
sent what  were  the  relations  of  the  people  to  the  Law  before 
the  time  of  Ezra.  That  question  must  come  up  afterwards  ; 
but  any  one  who  reads  with  attention  the  narrative  in  the 
book  of  Nehemiah  must  be  satisfied  that  this  work  of  Ezra, 
and  the  covenant  which  the  people  took  upon  them  to  obey 
the  Law,  were  of  epoch-making  importance  for  the  Jewish 
community.  It  was  not  merely  a  covenant  to  amend  certain 
abuses  in  detailed  points  of  legal  observance ;  for  the  people 
in  their  confession  very  distinctly  state  that  the  Law  had  not 
been  observed  by  their  ancestors,  their  rulers,  or  their  priests, 
up  to  that  time  (Neh.  ix.  34) ;  and  in  particular  it  is  men- 
tioned that  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  had  never  been  observed 
with  the  ceremonial  prescribed  in  the  Law  from  the  time  that 
the  Israelites  occupied  Canaan  under  Joshua  (Neh.  viii.  17). 
Accordingly  this  covenant  must  be  regarded  as  a  critical 
epoch  in  the  history  of  the  community  of  Israel.  From  that 
time  forward,  with  the  assistance  and  under  the  approval  of 
the  Persian  king,  the  Law — that  is,  the  Pentateuch  or  Torah, 
as  we  now  have  it,  for  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Law 
which  was  in  Ezra's  hands  w\as  practically  identical  wdth  our 
present  Hebrew  Pentateuch — became  the  religious  and  muni- 
cipal code  of  Israel.  Now  the  Pentateuch,  viewed  as  a  code, 
is  such  a  book  as  imperatively  calls  for  a  class  of  trained 


44  WORK   OF   THE   SCRIBES  lect.  hi 

lawyers  to  be  its  interpreters.  I  do  not  ask  at  present 
whether,  as  most  critics  suppose,  there  are  real  contradictions 
between  the  laws  given  in  different  parts  of  the  five  books  of 
Moses.  At  all  events,  it  is  a  familiar  fact  that  those  who 
maintain  that  all  the  Pentateuchal  laws  can  be  reconciled, 
differ  very  much  among  themselves  as  to  the  precise  method 
of  reconciliation.  In  such  an  ambiguity  of  the  Law  it  is 
manifest  that  the  Scribes  had  an  indispensable  function  as 
guides  of  the  people  to  that  interpretation  which  was  in 
actual  use  in  the  practical  administration  of  the  code.  Accord- 
ingly, by  and  by,  in  the  time  of  the  Chronicler  (1  Chron.  ii. 
55),  we  find  them  organised  in  regular  "  families,"  or,  as  we 
should  now  say,  "  guilds,"  an  institution  quite  in  accordance 
with  the  whole  spirit  of  the  East,  which  forms  a  guild  or  trades- 
union  of  every  class  possessing  special  technical  knowledge. 

We  see,  then,  that  before  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament 
Canon  the  Scribes  not  only  existed,  continuing  the  work  of 
Ezra,  but  that  they  existed  in  the  form  of  guilds  or  regular 
societies.  What  were  their  objects  ?  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  from  the  first  the  objects  of  the  Scribes  were  not  philo- 
logical and  literary,  but  practical.  Ezra's  object  was  so.  He 
came  to  make  the  Law  the  practical  rule  of  Israel's  life,  and 
so  it  was  still  in  later  ages.  The  wisdom  of  the  Scribes 
consisted  of  two  parts,  which  in  Jewish  terminology  were 
respectively  called  "Halacha"  and  "  Haggada."  "Halacha" 
was  legal  teaching,  systematised  legal  precept ;  while  "  Hag- 
gada "  was  doctrinal  and  practical  admonition,  mingled  with 
parable  and  legend.  But  of  these  two  parts  the  "  Halacha," 
— that  is,  the  system  of  rules  applying  the  Pentateuchal  law 
to  every  case  of  practice  and  every  detail  of  life, — was  always 
the  chief  thing.  The  difference  between  the  learned  theologian 
and  the  unlearned  vulgar  lay  in  knowledge  of  the  Law.  You 
remember  what  the  Pharisees  say  in  John  vii.  49 — "This 
people,  which  knoweth  not  the  law,  are  cursed."     The  Law 


LECT.  Ill  HALACHA    AND    HAGGADA  45 

was  the  ideal  of  the  Scribes.  Their  theory  of  tlie  history  of 
Israel  was  this : — In  time  past  Israel  had  been  chastised  by 
God's  wrath  ;  the  cause  of  tliis  chastisement  was  that  the 
people  had  neglected  the  Law.  Forgetting  the  Law,  Israel 
had  passed  and  was  still  passing  through  many  tribulations, 
and  was  subjected  to  the  yoke  of  a  foreign  power.  What 
was  the  duty  of  the  Jews  in  this  condition  of  things  ?  Ac- 
cording to  the  Scribes,  it  was  not  to  engage  in  any  political 
scheme  whatever  for  throwing  off  the  foreign  yoke,  but  to 
establish  the  Law  in  their  own  midst, — to  apply  themselves, 
not  only  to  obey  the  whole  Torah,  particularly  in  its  cere- 
monial precepts,  but  so  to  develop  these  precepts  that  they 
might  embrace  every  minute  detail  of  life.  Then,  when  by 
this  means  Israel  had  become  a  law-obeying  nation  in  the 
fullest  sense  of  the  word,  Jehovah  Himself,  in  His  righteous- 
ness, would  intervene,  miraculously  remove  the  scourge,  and 
establish  the  glory  of  His  law-fulfilling  people.  These  were 
the  principles  of  the  Scribes  and  the  Pharisees,  the  principles 
spoken  of  by  Paul  in  writing  to  the  Eomans,  when  he  tells 
us  that  Israel  followed  after  a  law  of  righteousness  without 
attaining  to  it ;  that  they,  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteous- 
ness, and  going  about  to  establish  their  own,  did  not  submit 
themselves  to  tlie  righteousness  of  God  (Eom.  ix.  31,  x.  3). 

All  that  the  Scribes  did  for  the  transmission,  preservation, 
and  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament,  was  guided  by  their 
legal  aims.  In  the  first  instance,  they  were  not  scholars,  not 
preachers,  but  "  lawyers  "  (voixlkol),  as  they  are  often  called 
in  the  New  Testament.  In  their  juridical  decisions  they  were 
guided  partly  by  study  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  partly  also  by 
observation  of  the  actual  legal  usages  of  their  time,  by  those 
views  of  the  Law  which  were  practically  acknowledged,  for 
example,  in  the  ceremonial  of  the  temple  and  the  priesthood. 
There  was  thus,  in  the  wisdom  of  the  Scribes,  an  element  of 
use  and  wont, — an  element  of  common  law,  which  of  course 


46  THE   SCRIBES   AND  lect.  hi 

existed  in  Jerusalem,  as  in  every  other  living  community, 
side  by  side  with  the  codified  written  law  ;  and  this  element 
of  common  law,  or  use  and  wont,  was  the  source  of  the  theory 
of  IcGfal  tradition  familiar  to  all  of  us  from  allusions  in  the 
New  Testament.  According  to  this  theory,  Moses  himself 
had  delivered  to  Israel  an  oral  law  along  with  the  written 
Torah.  The  oral  law  was  as  old  as  the  Pentateuch,  and  had 
come  dow^n  in  authentic  form  through  the  prophets  to  Ezra. 
The  conception  of  an  oral  law,  as  old  and  venerable  as  the 
written  law,  necessarily  influenced  the  Scribes  in  all  their 
interpretations  of  Scripture.  It  introduced  into  their  hand- 
ling of  Scripture  an  element  of  uncertainty  and  falsity,  upon 
which  Jesus  Himself,  as  you  will  remember,  put  His  finger, 
with  that  unfailing  insight  of  His  into  the  unsound  parts  of 
the  religious  state  of  His  time.  Through  their  theory  of  the 
traditional  law  the  Scribes  were  led  into  many  a  departure 
from  the  spirit,  and  even  from  the  letter  of  the  written  Word 
(Matt.  xii.  1-8,  xv.  1-20,  xxiii.). 

To  the  Scribes,  then,  the  whole  law,  written  and  oral,  w^as 
of  equal  practical  authority.  What  they  really  sought  to 
preserve  intact,  and  hand  down  as  binding  for  Israel,  w^as  not 
so  much  the  written  text  of  the  Pentateuch  as  their  own  rules, 
— partly  derived  from  the  Pentateuch,  but  partly,  as  we  have 
seen,  from  other  sources, — which  they  honestly  believed  to  be 
equally  an  expression  of  the  mind  of  the  Ptcvealer,  even  in 
cases  where  they  had  no  basis  in  Scripture,  or  only  the  basis 
of  some  very  strained  interpretation.  Now,  you  can  readily 
conceive  that  the  traditional  interpretation  of  the  law  could 
not  be  stationary.  In  fact,  w^e  know  that  it  was  not  so.  The 
subject  has  been  gone  into  with  great  care  by  Jewish  scholars, 
who  are  more  interested  than  we  are  in  the  traditional  law ; 
and  they  have  been  able  to  prove,  from  their  own  books  and 
written  records  of  the  legal  traditions,  that  the  law  underwent, 
from  century  to  century,  not  a  few  changes.     This  was  no 


LECT.  Ill  THE    ORAL   LAW  47 


more  than  natural.  So  long  as  a  nation  lias  a  national  life, 
lives  and  develops  new  practical  necessities,  there  must  also 
from  time  to  time  be  changes  in  the  law  and  its  application. 
In  part,  then,  the  growth  of  the  traditional  law  was  owing  to 
changes  and  new  necessities  of  the  national  life.  It  would 
doubtless,  from  this  source  alone,  have  grown  and  clianged 
very  much  more,  but  for  the  fact  that  during  the  centuries 
between  Ezra  and  Christ  the  Jews  were  almost  continuously 
under  foreign  domination,  so  that  they  had  not  perfect  free- 
dom of  civil  or  even  religious  development.  At  the  same 
time,  they  always  retained  a  certain  amount  of  municipal  inde- 
pendence ;  and  so  long  as  the  municipal  life  remained  active, 
the  law  necessarily  underwent  modifications  from  time  to  time. 

But  there  was  another  reason  for  continual  changes  in 
the  traditional  law.  The  party  headed  by  the  Scribes,  which 
finally  developed  into  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  were  so 
carried  away  with  the  idea  that  God's  blessing  on  Israel  and 
the  removal  of  all  national  calamity  depended  on  a  punctilious 
observance  of  the  minutest  legal  ordinances,  that  they  deemed 
it  necessary  to  make,  as  they  put  it,  "  a  hedge  round  the  Law" 
— in  other  words,  to  fence  in  the  life  of  the  Israelite  with  new 
precepts  of  their  own  devising,  at  every  point  where  the 
boundary  line  between  the  legal  and  the  illegal  appeared  to 
be  indistinctly  marked.  There  was  therefore  a  constant 
tendency  to  add  new  and  more  complicated  precepts  of 
conduct,  and  especially  of  ceremonial  observance,  to  those 
already  prescribed  in  the  Pentateuch  and  in  the  oldest  form 
of  tradition,  so  that  it  might  be  impossible  for  a  man,  if  he 
held  by  all  traditional  rules,  to  come  even  within  sight  of  a 
possible  breach  of  the  Law. 

The  legal  system  thus  developed  had  not  at  first  the 
weight  of  an  authoritative  legislation  ;  for  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  were  not  the  governing  class  in  Juda3a.  The  rulers 
of  the  nation  in  its  internal  matters  were  the  priestly  aristo- 


48  THE   SCRIBES    AND    THE  lect.  hi 

cracy,  with  the  high  priest  at  their  head  as  a  sort  of  hereditary 
prince  over  Israel.  And  in  the  decay  of  the  Greek  power 
in  Syria,  when  the  Jews  were  able  for  a  time  to  assert  their 
political  independence,  the  Hasmonean  or  Maccabee  priest- 
princes  were  the  actual  sovereigns  of  Judaea  (142-37  B.C.) 
Nevertheless  the  great  Eabbins  of  the  party  of  Scribes  were 
men  whose  legal  ability  gained  for  them  a  commanding 
position  and  influence  ;  the  mass  of  the  Pharisees,  by  their 
claim  of  special  sanctity  and  special  legality,  also  acquired 
great  weight  with  the  common  people  ;  and  in  consequence 
of  this  the  authority  of  the  party  ultimately  became  so  great 
that,  as  we  learn  from  Josephus,  the  priestly  aristocracy,  who 
w^ere  the  civil  as  well  as  the  religious  heads  of  the  Jews,  and 
who  themselves  were  no  more  inclined  than  any  other  aristo- 
cracy to  make  changes  that  were  not  for  their  own  personal 
profit,  yet  found  themselves  compelled  by  the  pressure  of 
public  opinion  to  defer  in  almost  every  instance  to  the 
doctrines   of  the   Scribes.^      The   municipal   and   legal   ad- 

1  Josephus,  Antiquities,  xiii.  10,  §  6. — "The  Sadducees  had  only  the  well- 
to-do  classes  on  their  side.  The  populace  would  not  follow  them  ;  but  the 
Pharisees  had  the  multitude  as  auxiliaries."  Ibid,  xviii.  1,  §  4  :  "The  Sad- 
ducees are  the  men  of  highest  rank,  but  they  effect  as  good  as  nothing,  for  in 
affairs  of  government  they  are  compelled  against  their  will  to  follow  the  dicta 
of  the  Pharisees,  as  the  masses  would  otherwise  refuse  to  tolerate  them." 

The  best  account  of  the  relative  position  of  the  Scribes  and  the  governing 
class  at  different  periods  is  given  in  Wellhausen's  monograph  on  the  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees  cited  above.  See  also  Ryle  and  James,  Psalms  of  the  Pharisees, 
commonly  called  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  (Cambridge,  1891).  On  the  position 
of  the  two  parties  in  the  Sanhedrin,  Kuenen's  essay  Over  de  samenstelliiig  van 
het  Sanhedrin,  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Amsterdam,  1866, 
is  conclusive.  On  this  topic,  and  on  the  whole  meaning  of  the  antithesis  of 
the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  older  scholars  went  astray  by  following  too 
closely  the  unhistorical  views  of  later  Jewish  tradition.  When  Judaism  had 
ceased  to  have  a  national  existence,  and  was  merely  a  religious  sect,  the 
schoolmen  naturally  became  its  heads  ;  and  the  tradition  assumed  that  it  had 
always  been  so,  and  that  the  whole  history  of  the  nation  was  made  up  of  such 
theological  and  legal  controversies  as  engrossed  the  attention  of  later  times. 
(See  Taylor's  Sayings  of  the  Fathers,  Excursus  III.).  This  view  bears  its 
condemnation  on  its  face.  Before  the  fall  of  the  state  the  party  of  the  Scribes 
was  opposed,  not  to  another  theological  sect,  but  to  the  aristocracy,  which 


LECT.  Ill  PRIESTLY    ARISTOCRACY  49 

ministration  took  place  by  means  of  councils  bearing  the 
name  of  Synedria  or  Sanliedrin.  There  was  a  central  council 
with  judicial  and  administrative  authority — the  Great  Sanlie- 
drin in  Jerusalem — and  there  were  local  councils  in  provincial 
towns.  These  councils  were  mainly  occupied  by  Sadducees, 
or  men  of  the  aristocratic  party  ;  but  ultimately  the  Scribes, 
as  trained  lawyers,  gained  a  considerable  proportion  of  seats 
in  them  ;  and  during  the  latter  time  of  the  Maccabees  under 
Queen  Salome,  and  still  more  after  the  fall  of  the  Hasmonean 
dynasty,  when  it  was  the  policy  of  Herod  the  Great  to  crush 
the  old  nobility  and  play  off  the  Pharisees  against  them,  the 
influence  of  the  Scribes  in  the  national  councils  of  justice 
came  greatly  to  outweigh  that  of  the  aristocratic  Sadducees. 
In  this  way,  as  you  will  observe,  the  interpreters  of  the  law 
gained  a  very  important  place  in  the  practical  life  of  Israel ; 
and  they  continued  active,  developing  and  applying  their 
peculiar  system,  until  the  overthrow  of  the  city  by  Titus  in 
the  year  A.D.  70.  When  the  Temple  was  destroyed  and  the 
Jewish  nationality  crushed,  a  great  part  of  the  public  ordin- 
ances decreed  by  the  Scribes  necessarily  fell  into  desuetude ; 
but  private  and  personal  observances  of  ceremonial  righteous- 
had  its  centre  in  the  high  priesthood,  and  pursued  practical  objects  of  political 
and  social  aggi-andisement  on  very  different  lines  from  those  of  scholastic 
controversy.  That  the  Sadducees  are  the  party  headed  by  the  chief  priests, 
and  the  Pharisees  the  party  of  the  Scribes,  is  plain  from  the  New  Testament, 
especially  from  Acts  v,  17.  The  higher  priesthood  was  in  spirit  a  very  secular 
nobility,  more  interested  in  war  and  diplomacy  than  in  the  service  of  the 
Temple.  The  theological  tenets  of  the  Sadducees,  as  they  appear  in  the  New 
Testament  and  Josephus,  had  a  purely  political  basis.  They  detested  the 
doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  and  the  fatalism  of  the  Pharisees,  because  these 
opinions  were  employed  by  their  adversaries  to  thwart  their  political  aims. 
The  aristocracy  suffered  a  great  loss  of  position  by  the  subjection  to  a  foreign 
power  of  the  nation  which  they  had  ruled  in  the  early  Hasmonean  period, 
when  the  high  priest  was  a  great  prince.  But  the  Pharisees  discouraged  all 
rebellion.  Israel's  business  was  only  to  seek  after  the  righteousness  of  the 
law.  The  redemption  of  the  nation  would  follow  in  due  time,  without  man's 
interference.  The  resurrection  would  compensate  those  who  had  suffered  in 
this  life,  and  the  hope  of  this  reward  made  it  superfluous  for  them  to  seek  a 
present  deliverance. 

4 


50  THE   WRITTEN   LAW  lect.  hi 

ness  were  still  insisted  upon,  and  in  one  sense  the  Scribes 
became  more  influential  than  ever ;  for  those  parts  of  the  law 
which  could  still  be  put  in  force  were  the  only  remaining 
expression  of  national  spirit,  and  the  doctors  of  the  law  were 
accepted  as  the  natural  leaders  of  all  loyal  Jews.  Now  for 
the  first  time  Judaism  and  Pharisaism  became  identical ;  for 
Pharisaism  alone,  with  its  strict  code  of  ceremonial  observ- 
ance, made  it  possible  for  the  Jew  to  remain  a  Jew  when  the 
state  had  perished  and  the  Temple  lay  in  ruins.  But  at  the 
same  time  the  legal  system  ceased  to  be  subject  to  the  play 
of  those  living  forces  which  during  the  ages  of  national  or 
municipal  independence  had  continually  modified  its  details. 
Further  development  became  impossible,  or  was  limited  to  a 
much  narrower  range  ;  and  after  the  last  desperate  struggle 
of  the  Jews  for  liberty  under  Hadrian,  132  to  135  a.d.,  the 
Scribes,  no  longer  able  to  find  a  practical  outlet  for  their 
influence  in  the  guidance  of  the  state,  devoted  themselves  to 
systematising  and  writing  down  the  traditional  law  in  the 
stage  which  it  had  then  reached.  This  systematisation  took 
shape  in  the  collection  which  is  called  the  Mishna,  which  was 
completed  by  Eabbi  Judah  tlie  Holy  about  200  a.d.^ 

1  The  word  il/isA7ia  means  "instruction,"  literally  "repetition,"  "inculca- 
tion." From  the  same  root  in  Aramaic  form  the  doctors  of  the  Mishna  bear 
the  name  of  Tannd,  teacher  (repeater).  After  the  close  of  the  Mishna  the 
collection  and  interpretation  of  tradition  was  carried  on  by  a  new  succession 
of  scholars  whose  contributions  make  up  the  G^gmara  ("  decision, "  "  doctrine"), 
a  vast  and  desultory  commentary  on  the  ^lishna.  There  are  two  Gemaras, 
one  Palestinian,  the  other  Babylonian,  and  each  of  these  rests  on  a  new 
recension  of  the  Mishnic  text.  The  Palestinian  Mishna  was  long  supposed  to 
be  lost,  but  has  recently  been  printed  by  Lowe  from  a  Cambridge  MS.  (Cam- 
bridge, 1883).  The  name  for  a  doctor  of  the  Gemara  is  Amdra,  speaker. 
Mishna  and  Gemara  together  make  up  the  Talmud.  The  Babylonian  Gemara 
was  not  completed  till  the  sixth  centur}^  of  our  era. 

The  whole  Mishna  was  published,  with  a  Latin  translation  and  notes,  by 
G.  Surenhusius,  in  6  vols,  folio  (Amsterdam,  1698-1703).  There  is  a  German 
translation  by  Rabe  (1760-1763),  and  another  printed  in  Hebrew  letters  by 
Jost  (Berlin,  1832-1834).  There  is  no  complete  English  version,  but  eighteen 
treatises,  still  important  for  the  daily  life  of  the  Jews,  were  translated  by 
Ptaphall  and  De  Sola  (London,  1845).     Another  selection  is  given  by  Dr. 


LECT.  Ill  AND    THE    HALACHA  51 

I  have  directed  your  attention  to  the  liistory  of  the  tradi- 
tional law  because  its  transmission  is  inseparably  bound  up 
with  the  transmission  of  the  text  of  the  Bible.  As  we  liave 
seen,  the  whole  law,  written  and  oral,  was  one  in  the  estima- 
tion of  the  Scribes.  The  early  versions  and  the  early  Jewish 
commentaries  show  us  that  the  interpretation  of  the  Penta- 
teuch was  guided  by  legal  much  rather  than  by  philological 
principles.  The  Bible  was  understood  by  the  help  of  the 
Halacha  quite  as  much  as  the  Halacha  was  based  upon  the 
Bible  ;  and  so,  as  the  traditional  law  underwent  many  changes, 
these  reacted  upon  the  interpretation  and  even  to  a  certain 
extent  upon  the  reading  of  the  text  of  the  Pentateuch.  Let 
me  take  an  example  of  this  from  what  we  find  in  the  Bible 
itself.  In  Nell.  x.  32  [33]  we  read  that  the  people  made  a 
law  for  themselves,  charging  themselves  with  a  yearly  poll- 
tax  of  one-third  of  a  shekel  for  the  service  of  the  Temple.  In 
the  time  of  Christ  this  tribute  of  one-third  of  a  shekel  had 
been  increased  to  half  a  shekel  {didrachma ;  Matt.  xvii.  24) ; 
and  the  impost  which  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  was  a  tax 
voluntarily  taken  upon  themselves  by  the  people  without  any 
written  warrant,  was  in  this  later  time  supposed  to  be  based 
upon  Exodus  xxx.  12-16.  This  view  of  the  matter,  indeed, 
is  already  taken  by  the  Chronicler ;  for  he  speaks  of  a  yearly 
Mosaic  impost  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Temple  (2  Chron. 
xxiv.  5,  6),  and  therefore  even  in  his  time  the  law  of  Exodus 
must  have  been  held  to  be  the  basis  of  the  poll-tax.  Yet 
that  tax  was  a  new  tax ;  it  was  first  devised  in  the  time  of 
ISTehemiah  ;  and  it  is  only  an  afterthought  of  the  Scribes  to 
base  it  upon  the  Pentateucli.-'     This  example  illustrates  one 

Barclay,  the  late  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  in  his  work,  The  Talmud  (London, 
1878).  See  further  the  article  Misuna,  by  Dr.  Schiller-Sziuessy,  in  the  ninth 
edition  of  the  Encydojxxdia  Britannica. 

^  For  the  purpose  in  hand  it  is  not  necessary  to  carry  the  argument 
further.  But  it  may  be  observed  that  on  the  facts  we  must  make  a  choice  be- 
tween two  alternatives.    Either  Exod.  xxx.  is  simply  the  historical  record  of  an 


52  TALMUDIC   AND 


LECT.  Ill 


way  in  which  the  conception  of  the  law  changed  in  the  hands 
of  the  Scribes.  In  other  cases  they  actually  took  it  upon 
themselves  to  alter  Pentateuchal  laws.  For  example,  the 
tithes  were  transferred  from  the  Levites  to  the  priests,  and 
the  use  of  the  liturgy  prescribed  in  Deuteronomy  xxvi.  12-15 
on  occasion  of  the  tithing,  which  was  not  suitable  after  that 
change  had  been  made,  was  abolished  by  John  Hyrcanus, 
the  Hasmonean  prince  and  high  priest.-^  These  are  but  single 
examples  out  of  many  which  might  be  adduced,  but  they  are 
enough  to  show  that  so  long  as  the  development  of  the  oral 
law  was  running  its  course,  the  written  law  was  treated  by 
the  Scribes  with  a  certain  measure  of  freedom. 

Their  real  interest,  I  repeat,  lay  not  in  the  sacred  text 
itself,  but  in  the  practical  system  based  upon  it.  That  comes 
out  very  forcibly  in  repeated  passages  of  the  Eabbinical 
WTitings,  in  which  the  study  of  Scripture  is  spoken  of  almost 
contemptuously,  as  something  far  inferior  to  the  study  of  the 
traditional  legislative  system. 

N'ow,  people  often  think  of  the  Jews  as  entirely  absorbed, 
from  the  very  first,  in  the  exact  grammatical  study  and  literal 
preservation  of  the  written  Word.  Had  this  been  so,  they 
could  never  have  devised  so  many  expositions  which  are 

impost  once  levied  by  Moses  for  a  special  purpose  (and  so  it  is  taken  in  Exod. 
xxxviii.  21-31),  in  which  case  we  see  that  it  was  not  made  the  ground  of  a 
permanent  ordinance  till  after  the  time  of  Nehemiah  ;  or,  on  the  other  hand, 
Exod.  XXX.  11  sqq.  is  meant  as  a  general  ordinance  for  future  ages,  in  which 
case  the  passage  cannot  have  been  written  till  after  Nehemiah's  time.  In 
support  of  the  latter  view  see  Kuenen,  Onderzoek^  2d  ed.,  I.  i.  §  15,  note  30. 
The  point  will  be  touched  on  again  in  Lecture  XII. 

^  Mishna,  Maaser  Sheni,  v.  15  (ed.  Surenh.,  vol.  i.  p.  287),  and  Sota,  ix. 
10,  with  Wagenseil's  note  in  Surenh.,  iii.  296.  This  is  the  earlier  and  un- 
doubtedly the  historical  account,  but  the  Gemara  tries  to  establish  the  change 
on  a  better  footing  by  ascribing  it  to  Ezra,  who  thus  punished  the  Levites  for 
refusing  to  return  from  Babylon — an  account  which  is  in  flat  contradiction 
with  Nehem.  x.  37  [38].  See  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena,  p.  172  sq.  On  the 
change  in  the  law  of  redemption,  introduced  by  Hillel,  which  is  another 
example  in  point,  see  Derenbourg,  Essai  (Paris,  1867),  p.  188.  Compare  also 
Zunz,  Gottesdieyistliche  Vortrdge  der  Juden,  pp.  11,  45  (Berlin,  1832). 


LECT.  Ill  MEDIEVAL    EXEGESIS  53 

plainly  against  the  idiom  of  the  Hebrew  language,  but  which 
flowed  naturally  and  easily  from  the  legal  positions  then 
current.  The  early  Scribes  had  neither  the  inclination  nor 
the  philological  qualifications  for  exact  scholarly  study,  and 
when  they  did  lay  weight  upon  some  verbal  nicety  of  the 
sacred  Text,  they  did  so  in  the  interest  of  their  legal  theories, 
and  upon  principles  to  which  we  can  assign  no  value.  No 
doubt  the  Scribes  and  their  successors  in  the  Talmudic  times 
(200  to  600  A.D.)  must  themselves  have  been  often  aware  that 
the  meanings  which  they  forced  upon  texts,  in  order  to  carry 
out  their  legal  system,  were  not  natural  and  idiomatic  render- 
ings. But  this  did  not  greatly  trouble  them,  for  it  was  to 
them  an  axiom  that  the  oral  and  the  written  laws  were  one 
system,  and  therefore  they  were  bound  to  harmonise  the  two 
at  any  sacrifice  of  the  rules  of  language.  The  objections  to 
such  an  arbitrary  exegesis  did  not  come  to  be  strongly  felt 
till  long  after  the  Talmudic  period,  when  a  new  school  of 
Jewish  scholars  arose,  who  had  grammatical  and  scientific 
knowledge,  mainly  derived  from  the  learning  of  the  Arabs. 
When  in  the  Middle  Ages  these  Eabbins  introduced  a  stricter 
system  of  grammatical  interpretation,  it  came  to  be  felt  that 
the  Talmudic  way  of  dealing  with  Scripture  was  often  forced 
and  unnatural,  and  so  it  was  found  necessary  to  draw  a  sharp 
distinction  between  the  traditional  Talmudic  interpretation 
of  any  text,  which  continued  to  have  the  value  of  an  indis- 
putable legal  authority,  and  the  grammatical  interpretation 
or  P'shat,  representing  that  exact  and  natural  sense  of  the 
passage  which  more  modern  study  had  enabled  men  to  deter- 
mine with  sharpness  and  precision. 

The  media3val  Eabbins  concentrated  their  attention  on  the 
plain  grammatical  sense  of  Scripture,  and  their  best  doctors, 
who  were  the  masters  of  our  Protestant  translators,  rose  much 
above  the  Talmudical  exegesis,  although  they  never  altogether 
shook  off  the  false  principle  that  a  good  sense  must  be  got 


54  THE   SCRIBES   AND   THE  lect.  hi 

out  of  everything,  and  that  if  it  cannot  be  got  out  of  the  text 
by  the  rules  of  grammar,  these  rules  must  give  way.  Even 
our  own  Bible,  which  rests  almost  entirely  upon  the  better 
or  grammatical  school  of  Jewish  interpretation,  does,  in  some 
passages,  show  traces  of  the  Talmudical  weakness  of  deter- 
mining to  harmonise  things,  and  get  over  difficulties,  even  at 
the  expense  of  strict  grammar ;  but  this  false  tendency  was 
confined  within  narrow  limits  ;  and,  on  the  whole,  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Talmudists  was  almost  completely  conquered  in 
the  Protestant  versions,  although  it  is  still  felt  in  the  harmon- 
ist! c  exegesis  of  the  anti-critical  school.^ 

A  much  more  serious  question  is  raised  by  the  considera- 
tion that  although  we  are  able  to  correct  the  interpretation  of 
the  ancient  Scribes,  we  have  the  text  of  the  Hebrew  Old 
Testament  as  they  gave  it  to  us  ;  and  we  must  therefore 
inquire  whether  they  were  in  a  position  to  hand  down  to  us 
the  best  possible  text.  Let  me  illustrate  the  significance  of 
this  question,  by  referring  to  the  history  of  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  books  of  the  New  Testament  circulated 
in  manuscript  copies,  and  it  is  by  a  comparison  of  such  old 
codices  as  still  remain  to  us  that  scholars  adjust  the  printed 
texts  of  their  modern  editions.     The  comparison  shows  that 

1  Tlie  point  in  which  the  exegesis  of  the  Mediaeval  Jews  (and  of  King 
James's  translators)  was  most  defective  was  that  they  always  assumed  it  to  be 
possible  to  interpret  what  lay  before  them,  and  would  not  recognise  that  many 
difficulties  arise  from  corruption  of  the  text.  In  a  book  of  profane  antiquity, 
a  passage  that  cannot  be  construed  grammatically  is  at  once  assumed  to  be 
corrupt,  and  a  remedy  is  sought  from  MSS.  or  conjecture.  The  Jews,  and 
until  recently  the  great  majority  of  Christian  scholars,  refused  to  admit  this 
principle  for  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  The  Septuagint  proves  the  existence  of 
corruptions  in  the  Hebrew  text,  and  often  supplies  the  correction.  But  many 
corruptions  are  older  than  the  Septuagint  version,  and  can  be  dealt  with  only 
by  conjectural  emendation.  The  English  reader  may  form  a  fair  idea  of  the 
state  of  the  Old  Testament  text,  and  of  what  has  been  done  by  modern 
scholarship  to  correct  it,  from  the  notes  of  Professors  Cheyne  and  Driver  in 
the  Variorum  Bible,  3d  ed.,  1889  (Eyre  and  Spottiswoode). 

Examples  of  the  few  cases  where  the  Authorised  Version  has  been  misled 
by  dogmatical  or  historical  prepossessions  will  come  before  us  in  the  course  of 
these  Lectures. 


LECT.  Ill  TEXT    OF    THE    BIBLE  55 

the  old  copies  often  differ  in  tlieir  readings.  Some  of  the 
variations  are  mere  slips  of  the  transcriber,  which  any  Greek 
scholar  can  correct  as  readily  as  one  corrects  a  slip  made  in 
writing  a  letter  ;  but  others  are  more  serious.  Those  of  you 
who  have  not  access  to  the  Greek  Testament,  will  find  suf- 
ficient examples  either  in  the  small  English  New  Testament 
published  by  Tischendorf  in  1869,  which  gives  the  readings 
of  three  ancient  MSS.,  or  in  that  very  convenient  book,  Eyre 
and  Spottiswoode's  Variorum  Bible,  which,  on  the  whole,  is 
the  best  edition  of  the  English  version  for  any  one  who  wishes 
to  look  below  the  surface.  Now  if  you  consult  such  collec- 
tions of  various  readings  as  are  given  in  these  works,  you 
will  find  that,  in  various  MSS.,  words,  clauses,  and  sentences 
are  inserted  or  omitted,  and  sometimes  the  insertions  change 
the  whole  meaning  of  a  passage.  In  one  or  two  instances  a 
complete  paragraph  appears  in  some  copies,  and  is  left  out  in 
others.  The  titles  in  particular  offer  great  variations.  The 
oldest  MSS.  do  not  prefix  the  name  of  Paul  to  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  and  they  do  not  put  the  words  "  at  Ephesus," 
into  the  first  verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Ephesians.  Such 
changes  as  these  show  that  the  copyists  of  these  times  did 
not  proceed  exactly  like  law  clerks  copying  a  deed.  They 
made  additions  from  parallel  passages,  they  wrote  things  upon 
the  margin  which  afterwards  got  into  the  text ;  and,  when 
copying  from  a  rubbed  or  blotted  page,  they  sometimes  had 
to  make  a  guess  at  a  word.  In  these  and  other  ways  mistakes 
came  in  and  were  perpetuated ;  and  it  takes  the  best  scholar- 
ship, combined  with  an  acuteness  developed  by  long  practice, 
to  determine  the  true  reading  in  each  case,  and  to  eliminate 
all  corruptions. 

Of  course,  the  old  Christian  scholars  were  quite  aware  that 
such  variations  existed  among  copies,  and  in  later  times  they 
did  their  best  to  correct  the  text,  and  reduce  it  to  uniformity ; 
and  so  we  find  that,  while  the  oldest  MSS.  of  the  New  Testa- 


56  AGE    OF    THE    CURRENT  lect.  hi 

ment  show  great  variations,  the  later  MSS.  present  a  very 
uniform  text,  so  that  from  them  alone  we  could  not  guess  how 
great  was  the  range  of  readings  current  in  the  early  Church. 
Yet  no  one  will  affirm  that  the  shape  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment ultimately  took  in  the  hands  of  the  scholars  of  Antioch 
and  Constantinople,  is  as  near  to  the  first  hand  of  the  Apostles 
as  the  text  which  a  good  modern  editor  is  able  to  make  by 
comparing  the  oldest  copies.  The  mere  fact  that  a  particular 
form  of  the  text  got  the  upper  hand,  and  became  generally 
accepted  in  later  times,  does  not  prove  it  to  be  the  best  form 
of  the  text,  i.e.  the  most  exact  transcript  of  the  very  words 
that  were  written  by  the  apostles  and  evangelists.  To  the 
critical  editor  the  variations  of  early  copies  are  far  more 
significant  than  the  artificial  uniformity  of  late  manuscripts. 
Now  as  regards  the  Old  Testament,  we  certainly  find  a 
great  uniformity  among  copies.  All  MSS.  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible  represent  one  and  the  same  text.  There  are  slight 
variations,  but  these  are,  almost  without  exception,  mere  slips, 
such  as  might  have  been  made  even  by  a  careful  copyist,  and 
do  not  affect  the  general  state  of  the  text.  The  text,  there- 
fore, was  already  fixed  by  the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century 
after  Christ,  which  is  the  age  of  the  oldest  MS.  of  undisputed 
date.  But  a  comparison  of  the  ancient  translations  carries  us 
much  further  back.  We  may  say  that  the  text  of  the  Hebrew 
Old  Testament  which  we  now  have  is  the  same  as  lay  before 
Jerome  400  years  after  Christ ;  the  same  as  underlies  certain 
translations  into  Aramaic  called  Targums,  which  took  shape 
in  Babylonia  about  the  third  century  after  Christ ;  indeed  the 
same  text  as  was  received  by  the  Jews  early  in  the  second 
century,  when  the  Mishna  was  being  formed,  and  when  the 
Jewish  proselyte  Aquila  made  his  translation  into  Greek.  I 
do  not  affirm  that  there  were  no  various  readings  in  the  copies 
of  the  second  or  even  of  the  fourth  century,  but  the  variations 
were  slight  and  easily  controlled,  and  such  as  would  have 


HEBREW    TEXT 


occurred  iu  iiiauuscripts  carefully  transcribed  from  one  stand- 
ard copy.^ 

The  Jews,  in  fact,  from  the  time  when  their  national  life 
was  finally  extinguished,  and  their  whole  soul  concentrated 
upon  the  preservation  of  the  monuments  of  the  past,  devoted 
the  most  strict  and  punctilious  attention  to  the  exact  trans- 
mission of  the  received  text,  down  to  the  smallest  peculiarity 
of  spelling,  and  even  to  certain  irregularities  of  writing.  Let  m  e 
explain  this  last  point.  We  find  that  when  the  standard  manu- 
script had  a  letter  too  big,  or  a  letter  too  small,  the  copies  made 
from  it  imitated  even  this,  so  that  letters  of  an  unusual  size 
appear  in  the  same  place  in  every  Hebrew  Bible.  Nay,  the 
scrupulousness  of  the  transcribers  w^ent  still  further.  In  old 
MSS.,  when  a  copyist  had  omitted  a  letter,  and  when  the  error 
was  detected,  as  the  copy  was  revised,  the  reviser  inserted  the 
missing  letter  above  the  line,  as  we  should  now  do  with  a 
caret.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  reviser  found  that  any  super- 
fluous letter  had  been  inserted,  he  cancelled  it  by  pricking  a 
dot  above  it.  Now,  when  such  corrections  occurred  in  the 
standard  MS.  from  which  our  Hebrew  Bibles  are  all  copied, 
the  error  and  the  correction  w^ere  copied  together,  so  that  you 
will  find,  even  in  printed  Bibles  (for  the  system  has  been 
carried  into  the  printed  text),  letters  suspended  above  the 
line  to  show^  that  they  had  been  inserted  with  a  caret,  and 
letters  "  pointed "  wdth  a  dot  over  them  to  show  that  they 
form  no  proper  part  of  the  text.^     It  is  plain  that  such  a 

^  In  the  last  century  great  hopes  were  entertained  of  tlie  results  to  be 
derived  from  a  collation  of  Hebrew  MSS.  The  collections  of  Kennicott  (1776- 
1780)  and  De  Rossi  (1784-1788)  showed  that  all  MSS.  substantially  represent 
one  text,  and,  so  far  as  the  consonants  are  concerned,  recent  discoveries  have 
not  led  to  any  new  result.  On  the  text  that  lay  before  the  Talmudic  doctors 
compare  Strack,  Prolegomena  Critica  in  Vetiis  Testamenttim  Hchraicmn 
(Leipzig,  1873).  On  Aquila  see  supra,  p.  30,  note  2  ;  infra,  p.  64.  On  the 
Targums  see  Schiirer,  i.  115,  and  infra,  p.  64,  note  1. 

-  That  all  copies  of  the  Hebrew  text  belong  to  a  single  recension,  and 
come  from  a  common  source,  was  stated  by  Rosenmiiller  in  1834  (see  Stade's 
Zeitschrift,  1884,  p.  303).     In  1853  J.  Olshausen,  in  his  commentary  on  the 


5  8  MASSORETS   AND  lect.  hi 

system  of  mechanical  transmission  could  not  have  been 
carried  out  with  precision  if  copying  had  been  left  to  unin- 
structed  persons.  The  work  of  preserving  and  transmitting 
the  received  text  became  the  specialty  of  a  guild  of  technic- 
ally trained  scholars,  called  the  Massorets,  in  Hebrew  Baale 
hammassoreth,  or  "  possessors  of  tradition,"  that  is,  of  tradition 
as  to  the  proper  way  of  writing  and  reading  the  Bible.  The 
work  of  the  Massorets  extended  over  centuries,  and  they 
collected  many  orthographical  rules  and  great  lists  of 
peculiarities  of  writing  to  be  observed  in  passages  where  any 
error  was  to  be  feared,  which  are  still  preserved  either  as 
marginal  notes  and  appendices  to  ]\ISS.  of  the  Bible,  or  in 
separate  works.  But,  what  was  of  more  consequence,  the 
scholars  of  the  period  after  the  close  of  the  Talmud — that  is, 
after  the  sixth  Christian  century,  or  thereby — devoted  them- 
selves to  preserving  not  only  the  exact  writing  of  the  received 
consonantal  text,  but  the  exact  pronunciation  and  even  the 
musical  cadence  proper  to  every  word  of  the  sacred  text, 
according  to  the  rules  of  the  synagogal  chanting.  This  was 
effected  by  means  of  a  system  of  vowel  points  and  musical 
accents,  consisting  of  small  dots  and  apices  attached  to  the 
consonants  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.     The  idea  of  introducing 

Psalms,  p.  17  sq.,  argued  that  there  must  have  been,  at  least  as  far  back  as 
the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  an  official  recension  of  the  text,  extremely 
similar  to  that  of  the  Massorets,  and  that  this  text  was  not  critical,  but  formed 
by  slavishly  copying  a  single  MS. ,  which  in  many  places  was  in  very  imper- 
fect condition.  In  his  notes  on  Ps.  Ixxx.  14,  16  (comp.  also  that  on  Ps.  xxvii. 
13),  he  applies  this  view  to  explain  the  so-called  "extraordinary  points."  In 
1863,  independently  of  Olshausen,  whose  observations  seem  to  have  attracted 
little  notice,  Lagarde  in  his  AnmerJcungeTi  zur  Griechischen  Uehersetzung 
der  Proverbicn  again  maintained  the  origin  of  all  Hebrew  MSS.  from  one 
archetype,  using  the  extraordinary  points  to  prove  his  thesis.  Olshausen  had 
explained  the  extraordinary  points  from  the  assumption  of  a  single  archetype, 
but  to  him  the  evidence  for  the  latter  lay  in  comparison  of  the  versions  and 
in  the  observation  that  all  our  authorities  agree  even  in  the  most  palpable 
mistakes.  The  doctrine  of  the  single  archetype  has  been  accepted  by  Noldeke 
(whose  remarks  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschrift,  1873,  p.  444  sqq.,  are  worthy  of 
notice),  and  by  other  scholars.  I  know  of  no  attempt  to  refute  the  argu- 
ments on  which  it  rests. 


LECT.  Ill  PUNCTUATORS  59 

such  vowel  points,  vvliicli  were  still  unknown  in  the  time  of 
Jerome,  appears  to  have  been  borrowed  from  the  Syrian 
Christians,  and  was  developed  in  different  directions  among 
the  Palestinian  and  the  Babylonian  Jews.  The  Palestinian 
system  ultimately  prevailed  and  is  follow^ed  in  all  printed 
Bibles.  The  form  of  the  pointed  text  which  after  ages 
received  as  authoritative  w^as  fixed  in  the  tenth  century  by 
a  certain  Aaron,  son  of  Moses,  son  of  Asher,  generally  known 
as  Ben  Asher,  whose  ancestors  for  five  previous  generations 
w^ere  famous  as  Nakdantm,  or  "  punctuators."  But  even  the 
first  of  this  family,  Asher  "  the  elder,"  rested  on  the  labours  of 
earlier  scholars.  Some  recent  writers  are  disposed  to  think 
that  the  use  of  written  vowel  points  and  accents  may  have 
begun  even  in  the  sixth  century — at  all  events  the  system 
must  have  been  pretty  fully  w^orked  out  before  800  a.d.^ 

A  remarkable  feature  in  the  work  of  the  Massorets  is  that 
in  certain  cases  they  direct  the  reader  to  substitute  another 
word  for  that  which  he  finds  written  in  the  consonantal  text. 
In  such  cases  the  vowel  points  attached  to  the  word  that  is 
to  be  suppressed  in  reading  are  not  its  own  vowels  but  those 
proper  to  the  w^ord  to  be  substituted  for  it.  The  latter  word 
is  placed  in  the  margin  with  the  note  'P  {i.e.  Keri,  "read 
thou,"  or  Kere,  "  read  ").  The  word  in  the  text  which  is  not 
to  be  uttered  is  called  Kethib  ("  written  ").  These  marginal 
readings  are  of  various  kinds ;  in  a  great  part  of  them  the 
difference  between  text  and  margin  turns  upon  points  of  a 
purely  formal  character,  such  as  varieties  of  orthography, 
pronunciation,  or  grammatical  form ;  others  are  designed  to 
soften  expressions  which  it  was  thought  indecorous  to  read 
aloud ;  while  a  small  proportion  of  them  make  a  change  in 
the  sense,  and  are  either   critical   conjectures   or  readings 

1  See  as  regards  Ben  Asher,  Baer  and  Strack,  Dikduke  Hateamim  (Leipzig, 
1879),  p.  ix,  sqq.,  and  compare  Z.  D.  M.  G.  Jahresbericht  for  1879,  p.  124  ;  also, 
for  the  musical  a.ccents,'\\ickes's  Hebrew  Accentuation  {Oxford,  1881),  p.  Isqq. 


60  KERI    AND    KETHIB  lect.  hi 

which  must  once  have  stood  in  the  text  itself.  There  is  no 
reason  to  think  that  in  these  matters  the  Massorets  departed 
from  their  office  as  conservators  of  old  tradition ;  their  one 
object  was  to  secure  that  the  whole  Bible  should  be  written 
according  to  the  standard  consonantal  text  and  read  accord- 
ing to  the  traditional  use  of  the  Synagogue  service.  It 
appears,  therefore,  that  up  to  the  time  of  the  Massorets  a 
certain  small  number  of  real  variants  to  the  written  text  still 
survived  in  the  oral  tradition  of  the  Synagogue,  and  that  the 
respect  paid  to  the  written  text,  great  as  it  was,  was  not  held 
to  demand  the  suppression  of  these  oral  variants.  In  fact, 
the  tradition  of  the  right  interpretation  of  Scripture,  of  which 
the  rules  of  reading  formed  an  integral  part,  ran,  to  a  certain 
extent,  a  distinct  course  from  the  tradition  of  the  consonantal 
text.  The  Targums,  which  are  the  chief  monument  of 
exegetical  tradition  before  the  work  of  the  Massorets,  gener- 
ally agree  with  the  Keri  against  the  Kethib. 

These  facts  are  not  without  importance  as  a  corrective  to 
the  exaggerated  views  sometimes  put  forth  as  to  the  certainty 
of  every  letter  of  the  Hebrew  Text.  But  on  the  other  hand, 
it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  all  the  real  variants  of  the 
Targum  and  of  the  Massoretic  notes  amount  to  very  little. 
A  few  words,  or  rather  a  few  letters,  were  still  in  dispute 
among  the  traditional  authorities,  but  the  substance  of  the 
text  was  already  fixed.  There  are  many  passages  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible  which  cannot  be  translated  as  they  stand,  and 
where  the  text  is  undoubtedly  corrupt.  In  a  few  such  cases, 
where  the  corruption  does  not  lie  very  deep,  the  marginal 
Keri  or  the  Targum  supplies  the  necessary  correction  ;  but 
for  the  most  part  the  margin  is  silent,  and  the  Targum,  with 
all  other  versions  and  authorities  later  than  the  first  Christian 
century,  had  exactly  the  same  reading  as  the  received  Hebrew 
text.  For  good  or  for  evil  they  all  follow  a  single  archetype, 
and  vary  from  one  another  only  in  points  so  minute  as  seldom 


LECT.  Ill  SAMARITAN   PENTATEUCH  Gl 

to  affect  tlie  sense.  But  this  uniformity  in  the  tradition  of 
the  text  does  not  reach  back  beyond  the  time  of  the  Apostles. 
On  the  contrary,  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  in  earher 
ages  Hebrew  ^ISS.  differed  as  much  as  MSS.  of  the  New 
Testament,  or  more.  We  shall  have  to  look  at  the  proof  of 
this  in  some  detail  by  and  by.  For  the  present,  it  is  enough 
to  point  out  some  of  the  chief  sources  of  the  evidence.  The 
Samaritans,  as  well  as  the  Jews,  have  preserved  the  Hebrew 
Pentateuch,  writing  it  in  a  peculiar  character.  JSTow  the 
copies  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  which  they  received  from 
the  Jews  for  the  first  time  about  430  B.C.,  differ  very  consider- 
ably from  our  received  Hebrew  text.  One  or  two  of  the 
variations  are  corruptions  wilfully  introduced  in  favour  of 
the  schismatic  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim ;  but  others  have  no 
polemical  significance,  affecting  such  points  as  the  ages 
assigned  to  the  patriarchs.^  Then,  again,  the  old  Greek 
version,  the  Alexandrian  version  of  the  Septuagint,  which,  in 

1  Up  to  the  time  of  Nehemiah's  second  visit  to  Jerusalem,  there  was  still 
a  party,  even  among  the  priests,  which  entertained  friendly  relations  with  the 
Samaritans,  cemented  by  marriages.  Nehemiah  broke  up  this  party  ;  and  an 
unnamed  priest,  who  was  Sanballat's  son-in-law,  was  driven  into  exile.  This 
priest,  who  would  naturally  flee  to  his  father-in-law,  is  plainly  identical  with 
the  priest  Manasseh,  son-in-law  of  Sanballat,  of  whom  Josephus  {Antiq.  xi.  8) 
relates  that  he  fled  from  Jerusalem  to  Samaria,  and  founded  the  schismatic 
temple  on  Mount  Gerizim,  with  a  rival  hierarchy  and  ritual.  The  account  of 
Josephus  is  confused  in  chronology  and  untrustworthy  in  detail ;  but  the 
main  fact  agrees  with  the  Biblical  narrative,  and  it  is  clear  that  the  establish- 
ment of  the  rival  temple  was  a  natural  consequence  of  the  final  defeat  of  the 
Samaritans  in  their  persistent  efforts  to  establish  relations  with  the  Jewish 
priesthood  and  secure  admission  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  This  determines 
the  age  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  The  Samaritans  cannot  have  got  the 
law  before  the  Exile  through  the  priest  of  the  high  place  at  Samaria  mentioned 
in  2  Kings  xvii.  28.  For  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  as  practised  at  Samaria 
before  the  fall  of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  was  remote  from  the  ordinances  of 
the  law,  and  up  to  the  time  when  the  books  of  Kings  were  written  the 
Samaritans  worshipped  images,  and  did  not  observe  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch 
(2  Kings  xvii.  34,  41).  The  Pentateuch,  therefore,  was  introduced  as  their 
religious  code  at  a  later  date  ;  and  this  can  only  have  hapj^ened  in  connection 
with  the  ritual  and  priesthood  which  they  received  from  Jerusalem  through 
the  fugitive  priest  banished  by  Nehemiah. 


62  ANCIENT   VARIATIONS  lect.  hi 

part  at  least,  was  written  before  the  middle  of  the  third  century 
B.C.,  contains  many  various  readings,  sometimes  omitting 
large  passages,  or  making  considerable  insertions  ;  sometimes 
changing  the  order  of  chapters  and  verses;  sometimes  pre- 
senting only  minor  variations,  more  similar  to  those  with 
which  we  are  familiar  in  Greek  MSS.  Nay,  even  among 
learned  Jews  who  read  Hebrew,  the  text  was  not  fixed  up  to 
the  first  century  of  our  era.  For  the  Booh  of  Julilees,  a 
Hebrew  work  which  was  written  apparently  but  a  few  years 
before  the  fall  of  the  Temple,  agrees  with  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  in  some  of  the  numbers  in  the  patriarchal 
chronology,  and  in  other  readings.-^ 

Now,  observe  the  point  to  which  we  are  thus  brought. 
After  the  fall  of  the  Jewish  state,  when  the  Scribes  ceased  to 
be  an  active  party  in  a  living  commonwealth,  and  became  more 
and  more  pure  scholars,  gathering  up  and  codifying  all  the 
fragments  of  national  literature  and  national  life  that  remained 
to  them,  we  find  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  carefully  con- 
formed to  a  single  archetype.  But  we  cannot  trace  this  text 
back  through  the  centuries  when  the  nation  had  still  a  life  of 
its  own.  Nay,  we  can  be  sure  that  in  these  earlier  centuries 
copies  of  the  Bible  circulated,  and  were  freely  read  even  by 
learned  men  like  the  author  of  the  Boole  of  Jubilees,  which  had 
great  and  notable  variations  of  text,  not  inferior  in  extent  to 
those  still  existing  in  New  Testament  MSS.  In  later  times 
every  trace  of  these  varying  copies  disappears.  They  must 
have  been  suppressed,  or  gradually  superseded  by  a  deliberate 
effort,  which  has  been  happily  compared  by  Professor  Noldeke 
to  the  action  of  the  Caliph  Othman  in  destroying  all  copies 
of  the  Koran  which  diverged  from  the  standard  text  that  he 
had  adopted.    There  can  be  no  question  who  were  the  instru- 

^  On  the  Book  of  Julilees,  see  especially  H.  Riinsch,  Das  Buchder  Juhilden 
(Leipzig,  1874),  and  Schiirer,  op.  cit.  vol.  ii.  p.  677  sqq.  On  the  various 
readings  of  the  book,  Ronsch,  pp.  196,  514. 


LECT.  Ill  IN    THE    HEBREW    TEXT  63 

ments  in  this  work.  The  Scribes  alone  possessed  the  neces- 
sary influence  to  give  one  text  or  one  standard  MS.  a  position 
of  such  supreme  authority.  Moreover,  we  are  able  to  explain 
how  it  came  about  that  the  fixing  of  a  standard  text  took 
place  about  the  Apostolic  age,  or  rather  a  little  later  than 
that  date,  and  not  at  any  earlier  time.  We  have  already 
glanced  at  the  political  causes  which  made  the  power  of  the 
Scribes  greater  in  the  time  of  Herod  than  it  had  ever  been 
before.  The  doctors  of  the  Law  wdelded  a  great  authority, 
and  were  naturally  eager  to  consolidate  their  legal  system. 
In  earlier  times  the  oral  and  written  law  went  independently 
side  by  side,  and  each  stood  on  its  ow^n  footing.  Therefore, 
variations  in  the  text  did  not  seriously  affect  any  practical 
question.  But  under  Eabbi  Hillel,  a  contemporary  of  Herod 
the  Great,  and  the  grandfather  of  the  Gamaliel  who  is 
mentioned  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Acts,  a  great  change  took 
place.  It  was  the  ambition  of  Hillel  to  devise  a  system  of 
interpretation  by  which  every  traditional  custom  could  be 
connected  with  some  text  from  the  Pentateuch,  no  matter  in 
how  arbitrary  a  way.  This  system  was  taken  up  and  perfected 
by  his  successors,  especially  by  Kabbi  Akiba,  who  was  a 
prominent  figure  in  the  revolt  against  Hadrian.^     The  new 

1  On  Hillel  and  his  school,  see  especially  Derenbourg,  op.  cit.  cliap.  xi. ; 
and  on  the  development  of  his  system  by  R.  Ishmael  and  R.  Akiba,  ibid. 
chap,  xxiii.  "Akiba  adopted,  not  only  the  seven  rules  of  Hillel,  but  the 
thirteen  of  Ishmael ;  even  the  latter  did  not  suffice  him  in  placing  all  the 
halachoth,  or  decisions  of  the  Rabbins,  under  the  shield  of  the  word  of  the 
Pentateuch.  His  system  of  interpretation  does  not  recognise  the  limits  estab- 
lished by  the  usage  of  the  language,  and  respected  by  Ishmael ;  every  word 
which  is  not  absolutely  indispensable  to  express  the  intention  of  the  legislator, 
or  the  logical  relations  of  the  sentences  of  a  law  and  their  parts,  is  designed  to 
enlarge  or  restrict  the  sphere  of  the  law,  to  introduce  into  it  the  additions  of 
tradition,  or  exclude  what  tradition  excludes.  No  particle  or  conjunction,  be 
it  augmentative  or  restrictive,  escapes  this  singular  method  of  exegesis." 
Thus  the  Hebrew  prefix  eth,  which  marks  the  definite  accusative,  agrees  in 
form  with  the  preposition  ivilh.  Hence,  when  Deut.  x.  20  says,  "Thou  shalt 
fear  e^^- Jehovah  thy  God,"  Akiba  interprets,  "Thou  shalt  fear  the  doctors  of 
the  law  along  with  Jehovah."     So  Aquila,  the  disciple  of  Akiba,  translates 


64  FORMATION   OF   A  lect.  hi 

metliod  of  exegesis  laid  weight  upon  the  smallest  word,  and 
sometimes  even  upon  mere  letters  of  Scripture;  so  that  it 
became  a  matter  of  great  importance  to  the  new  school  of 
Eabbins  to  fix  on  an  authoritative  text.  We  have  seen  that 
when  this  text  was  fixed,  the  discordant  copies  must  have 
been  rigorously  suppressed.  The  evidence  for  this  is  only 
circumstantial,  but  it  is  quite  sufficient.  There  is  no  other 
explanation  which  will  account  for  the  facts,  and  the  con- 
clusion is  confirmed  by  what  took  place  among  the  Greek- 
speaking  Jews  with  reference  to  their  Greek  Bible.  The 
Bible  of  the  Greek -speaking  Jews,  the  Septuagint,  had 
formerly  enjoyed  very  great  honour  even  in  Palestine,  and  is 
most  respectfully  spoken  of  by  the  ancient  Palestinian  tradi- 
tion ;  but  it  did  not  suit  the  newer  school  of  interpretation, 
it  did  not  correspond  with  the  received  text,  and  was  not 
literal  enough  to  fit  the  new  methods  of  Eabbinic  interpreta- 
tion, while  the  Christians,  on  the  contrary,  found  it  a  con- 
venient instrument  in  their  discussions  with  the  Jews. 
Therefore  it  fell  into  disrepute,  and  early  in  the  second 
century,  just  at  the  time  when,  as  we  have  seen,  the  new 
text  of  the  Old  Testament  had  been  fixed,  we  find  the  Sep- 
tuagint superseded  among  the  Greek- speaking  Jews  by  a 
new  translation,  slavishly  literal  in  character,  made  by  a 
Jewish  proselyte  of  the  name  of  Aquila,  who  was  a  disciple 
of  the  Eabbi  Akiba,  and  studiously  followed  his  exegetical 
methods.^ 

the  mark  of  the  accusative  by  (jvv.  See  Field,  Proleg.  p.  xxii.  Compare  on 
the  -whole  subject  Schiirer,  op.  cit.  vol.  ii.  §  25. 

^  The  progress  of  the  stricter  exegesis,  and  its  influence  on  the  treatment 
of  the  text,  may  also  be  traced  in  the  history  of  the  Targums  or  Aramaic 
paraphrases.  Targum  means  originally  the  oral  interpretation  of  the  Meturge- 
man  in  the  synagogue  {supra,  p.  36).  The  Meturgemanim  did  not  keep  close 
to  their  text,  but  added  paraphrastic  expositions,  practical  applications,  poetical 
and  romantic  embellishments.  But  there  was  a  restraint  on  individual 
liberty  of  exegesis.  The  translators  formed  a  guild  of  scholars,  and  their 
interpretations  gradually  assumed  a  fixed  type.  By  and  by  the  current 
form   of  the  Targum  was  committed  to  writing  ;    but  there  was  no  fixed 


LECT.  Ill  FIXED    HEBREW   TEXT  65 

It  was  then  the  Scribes  thcat  chose  for  us  the  Hebrew  text 
wliich  we  have  now  got.  But  were  they  in  a  position  to 
choose  the  very  best  text,  to  produce  a  critical  edition  which 
could  justly  be  accepted  as  the  standard,  so  that  we  lose 
nothing  by  the  suppression  of  all  divergent  copies  ?  Well, 
this  at  least  we  can  say :  that  if  they  fixed  for  us  a  satisfactory 
text,  the  Scribes  did  not  do  so  in  virtue  of  any  great  critical 
skill  which  they  possessed  in  comparing  ^ISS.  and  selecting 
the  best  readings.  They  w^orked  from  a  false  point  of  view. 
Their  objects  w^ere  legal,  not  philological.  Their  defective 
philology,  their  bad  system  of  interpretation,  made  them  bad 
critics ;  for  it  is  the  first  rule  of  criticism  that  a  good  critic 
must  be  a  good  interpreter  of  the  thoughts  of  his  author. 
This  judgment  is  fully  borne  out  by  the  accounts  given  in 
the  Talmudical  books  of  certain  small  and  sporadic  attempts 
made  by  the  Scribes  to  exercise  something  like  criticism  upon 
the  text.  For  example,  we  read  oi  three  MSS.  preserved  in 
the  Court  of  the  Temple,  each  of  which  had  one  reading 
which  the  other  MSS.  did  not  share.  The  Scribes,  we  are 
told,  rejected  in  each  case  the  reading  which  had  only  one 

edition,  and  those  Palestinian  Targums  wliicli  have  come  down  to  us 
belong  to  various  recensions,  and  contain  elements  added  late  in  the  ^Middle 
Ages. 

This  style  of  interpretation,  in  which  the  text  was  freely  handled,  and  the 
exposition  of  the  law  did  not  stand  on  the  level  of  the  new  science  of  Akiba 
and  his  associates,  fell  into  disfavour  with  the  dominant  schools,  just  as  the 
Septuagint  did.  The  Targum  is  severely  censured  in  the  Eabbinical  writings  ; 
and  at  length  the  orthodox  party  took  the  matter  into  their  own  hands,  and 
framed  a  literal  Targum,  which,  however,  did  not  reach  its  final  sliape  till  the 
third  Christian  century,  when  the  chief  seat  of  Jewish  learning  had  been 
moved  to  Babylonia.  The  Babylonian  Targum  to  the  Pentateuch  is  called 
the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  i.e.  the  Targum  in  the  style  of  Aquila  (Akylas). 
The  corresponding  Targum  to  the  Prophets  bears  the  name  of  Jonathan.  As 
Jonathan  is  the  Hebrew  equivalent  of  Theodotion,  this  perhaps  means  only 
the  Targum  in  the  style  of  Theodotion.  At  any  rate  these  Targums  are  not 
the  private  enterprise  of  individual  scholars,  but  express  the  official  exegesis 
of  their  age.  The  Targums  to  the  Hagiographa  have  not  an  official  character, 
Comp.  Geiger,  Urschrift  u.  Uehcrsetzungcn  (Breslau,  1857),  p.  163  5^5-.,  p.  451 


6  6  TEXTUAL    LABOURS  lect.  hi 

copy  for  it  and  two  against  it."^  Now,  every  critic  knows 
that  to  accept  or  reject  a  reading  merely  according  to  the 
number  of  MSS.  for  or  against  it  is  a  method  which,  if 
applied  on  a  larger  scale,  would  lead  to  a  bad  text.  But 
further  there  is  some  evidence,  though  it  cannot  be  said  to  be 
unambiguous,  that  the  Scribes  made  certain  changes  in  the 
text,  apparently  without  manuscript  authority,  in  order  to 
remove  expressions  which  seemed  irreverent  or  indecorous. 
We  have  seen  that  in  later  times,  after  the  received  text 
was  fixed,  the  Jewish  scholars  permitted  themselves,  in  such 
cases,  to  make  a  change  in  the  reading  though  not  in  the 
writing;  but  in  earlier  times,  it  would  seem,  the  rule  was 
not  quite  so  strict.  There  is  a  series  of  passages  in  which, 
according  to  Jewish  tradition,  the  expressions  now  found  in 
the  text  depart  from  the  form  of  words  which  ought  to  be 
used  to  convey  the  sense  that  was  really  in  the  mind  of  the 
sacred  writers.  These  are  referred  to  as  the  eightee^i  Tikhilni 
SopluTim  (corrections  or  determination  of  the  Scribes).  Thus 
in  Job  vii.  20,  where  the  present  text  reads,  "  I  am  a  burden 
to  myself,"  the  tradition  explains  that  the  expression  ought 
to  have  been,  "  I  am  a  burden  upon  thee,"  i.e.  upon  Jehovah. 
Again  in  Genesis  xviii.  22,  where  our  version  says,  "  Abraham 
stood  yet  before  the  Lord,"  tradition  says  that  this  stands  in 
place  of  "  The  Lord  stood  yet  before  Abraham."  And  again, 
in  Habakkuk  i.  12,  where  our  version  and  the  present 
Hebrew  text  read,  "  Art  thou  not  from  everlasting,  Jehovah 
my  God,  my  Holy  One?  We  shall  not  die,"  the  tradition 
tells  us  that  the  expression  should  have  been,  "  Thou  canst 
not  die,"  which  was  changed  because  it  seemed  irreverent  to 
mention  the  idea  of  God  dying,  even  in  order  to  negative  it. 
It  is  sometimes  maintained   by  Jewish   scholars   that   the 

1  Geiger,  Urschrift,  p.  232  ;  Mas.  Sopherhn,  vi.  4.  A  copy  of  the  Law 
was  carried  away  by  Titus  among  the  spoils  of  the  Temple  ;  Josephus,  B.  J. 
vii.  5,  §  5. 


OF    THE    SCRIBES  07 


tradition  as  to  these  TiklzHiit  SoiJlierim  does  not  imply  any 
tampering  with  the  text  on  the  part  of  the  Scribes,  but  only 
that  the  sacred  writers  themselves  disguised  their  thought  by 
refusing  to  use  expressions  which  they  thought  imseemly; 
but  it  is  highly  improbable  that  this  was  the  original  meaning 
of  the  tradition,  and  quite  certain  that  the  more  explicit 
traditional  accounts  can  have  no  other  meaning  than  that  the 
first  Scribes,  the  so-called  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  cor- 
rected the  text,  and  made  it  what  we  now  read.  It  may 
indeed  be  doubted  whether  the  details  of  the  tradition  are  of 
any  critical  value.  In  most  of  the  passages  in  question  the 
Septuagint  agrees  with  our  present  text,  and  the  internal 
evidence  is  on  the  same  side ;  while  in  some  cases,  as  2  Sam. 
XX.  1,  w^here  the  original  expression  is  said  to  have  been 
"  every  man  to  his  gods  "  instead  of  "  his  tents,"  the  supposed 
older  reading  is  manifestly  absurd.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
1  Sam.  iii.  13,  where  a  TikMn  is  registered  upon  the  expres- 
sion "  his  sons  made  themselves  vile  "  [Eev.  V. :  "  did  bring  a 
curse  on  themselves  "],  there  is  plainly  something  wrong,  and 
the  Septuagint,  with  the  change  of  a  single  letter  in  the 
Hebrew,  produces  the  good  sense  "did  revile  God,"  which 
agrees  with  the  Jewish  tradition.  On  the  whole,  therefore, 
we  are  entitled  to  conclude  that  the  Eabbins  had  some  vague 
inaccurate  knowledge  of  old  MS.  readings  which  departed 
from  the  received  text.  And  what  is  more  important,  the 
tradition  implies  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  early 
oruardians  of  the  text  did  not  hesitate  to  make  small  chancres 

o  o 

in  order  to  remove  expressions  which  they  thought  unedify- 
ing.-^  Beyond  doubt,  such  changes  were  made  in  a  good 
many  cases  of  which  no   record  has  been   retained.      For 

^  The  oldest  list  of  the  TikMne  S6pherhii  is  in  the  MecJiiUa,  a  work  of  tlie 
second  century,  and  contains  only  eleven  passages.  See  also  Geiger,  op.  cit, 
p.  309,  and  the  full  list  in  Ochla  w'ochla,  ed.  Frensdorff,  No.  168  (Hannover, 
1864).  On  the  value  of  this  tradition  conip.  Noldeke  in  GUt.  Gel.  Anz.,  1869, 
p.  2001  sq. 


68  EARLY    CHANGES  lect.  hi 

example,  in  our  text  of  the  books  of  Samuel,  Saul's  son  and 
successor  is  called  Ishboslieth,  but  in  1  Chronicles  viii.  33, 
ix.  39,  he  is  called  Eshbaal.  Eshbaal  means  ''  Baal's  man," 
a  proper  name  of  a  well-known  Semitic  type,  precisely  similar 
to  such  Arabic  names  as  Imrau-1-Cais,  "  the  man  of  the  god 
Cais."  We  must  not,  however,  fancy  that  a  son  of  Saul 
could  be  named  after  the  Tyrian  or  Canaanite  BaaL  The 
word  Baal  is  not  the  proper  name  of  one  deity,  but  an 
appellative  noun  meaning  lord  or  owner,  which  the  tribes  of 
the  ^N'orthern  Semites  applied  each  to  their  own  chief  divinity. 
In  earlier  times  it  appears  that  the  Israelites  did  not  scruple 
to  give  this  honorific  title  to  their  national  God  Jehovah. 
Thus  the  golden  calves  at  Bethel  and  Dan,  which  were 
worshipped  under  the  supposition  that  they  represented 
Jehovah,  were  called  Baalim  by  their  devotees ;  and  Hosea, 
when  he  prophesies  the  purification  of  Israel's  religion,  makes 
it  a  main  point  that  the  people  shall  no  longer  call  Jehovah 
their  Baal  (Hosea  ii.  16, 17 ;  comp.  xiii.  1,  2).  This  prophecy 
shows  that  in  Hosea's  time  the  use  of  the  word  was  felt  to  be 
dangerous  to  true  religion ;  and  indeed  there  is  no  question 
that  the  mass  of  the  people  were  apt  to  confound  the  true 
God  with  the  false  Baalim  of  Canaan,  the  local  divinities  or 
lords  of  individual  tribes,  towns,  or  sanctuaries.  And  so  in 
process  of  time  scrupulous  Israelites  not  only  desisted  from 
applying  the  title  of  Baal  to  Jehovah,  but  taking  literally  the 
precept  of  Exod.  xxiii.  13,  "Make  no  mention  of  the  name  of 
other  gods,"  they  were  wont,  when  they  had  occasion  to  refer 
to  a  false  deity,  to  call  him  not  Baal  but  Bosheth,  "the 
shameful  thing,"  as  a  euphemism  for  the  hated  name.  The 
substitution  of  "  Ishbosheth  "  for  "  Eshbaal,"  and  other  cases 
of  the  same  kind,  such  as  Mephibosheth  for  Meribaal  (man  of 
Baal),  are  therefore  simply  due  to  the  scruples  of  copyists  or 
readers  who  could  not  bring  themselves  to  write  or  utter  the 
hated  word  even  in  a  compound  proper  name.     Of  course  no 


LECT.  Ill  IN    THE    TEXT  69 

man,  and  certainly  no  king,  ever  bore  so  absurd  a  name  as 
"The  man  of  the  shameful  thing,"  and  as  Chronicles  still 
preserves  the  true  form,  we  may  be  pretty  certain  that  the 
change  in  the  name  in  the  book  of  Samuel  was  made  after 
he  wrote,  and  is  a  veritable  "  correction  of  the  Scribes." 

These,  then,  are  specimens  of  the  changes  which  we  can 
still  prove  to  have  been  made  by  early  editors,  and  they  are 
enough  to  show  that  these  guardians  of  the  text  were  not 
sound  critics.  Fortunately  for  us,  they  did  not  pretend  to 
make  criticism  their  main  business.  It  would  have  been  a 
very  unfortunate  thing  for  us  indeed,  if  we  had  been  left  to 
depend  upon  a  text  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  which  the  Scribes 
had  made  to  suit  their  own  views.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
however,  that  the  standard  copy  which  they  ultimately 
selected,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  owed  this  distinction 
not  to  any  critical  labour  which  had  been  spent  upon  it,  but 
to  some  external  circumstance  that  gave  it  a  special  reputa- 
tion. Indeed,  the  fact,  already  referred  to,  that  the  very  errors 
and  corrections  and  accidental  peculiarities  of  the  manuscript 
were  kept  just  as  they  stood,  shows  that  it  must  have  been 
invested  w^ith  a  peculiar  sanctity ;  if  indeed  the  meaning  of 
the  so-called  extraordinary  points — that  is,  of  those  suspended 
and  dotted  letters,  and  the  like — had  not  already  been  for- 
gotten wdien  it  was  chosen  to  be  the  archetype  of  all  future 
copies. 

IS'ow,  if  the  Scribes  were  not  the  men  to  make  a  critical 
text,  it  is  plain  that  they  were  also  not  in  a  position  to  choose, 
upon  scientific  principles,  the  very  best  extant  manuscript ; 
but  it  is  very  probable  that  they  selected  an  old  and  well- 
written  copy,  possibly  one  of  those  which  were  preserved  in 
the  Court  of  the  Temple.  Between  this  copy  and  the  original 
autographs  of  the  Sacred  Writers  there  must  have  been  many 
a  link.  It  may  have  been  an  old  manuscript,  but  it  w^as  not 
an  exorbitantly  old  one.     Of  that  there  are  two  proofs.     In 


70  THE    ARCHETYPE    OF  lect.  hi 

the  first  j^lace,  it  was  certainly  written  in  Aramaic  characters, 
not  very  different  from  the  "  square  "  or  "  Assyrian  "  letters 
used  in  our  modern  Hebrew  Bibles;  but  in  old  times  the 
Hebrews  used  the  quite  different  character  usually  called 
Phoenician.  According  to  Jewish  tradition,  which  is  disposed 
to  ascribe  everything  to  Ezra  which  it  has  not  the  assurance 
to  refer  to  Moses,  the  change  on  the  character  in  which  the 
sacred  books  were  written  was  introduced  by  Ezra ;  but  we 
know  that  this  is  a  mistake,  for  the  Samaritans,  who  acquired 
the  Pentateuch  after  Ezra's  publication  of  the  Law,  received 
it  in  the  old  Phoenician  letter,  which  they  retain  in  a  cor- 
rupted form  down  to  the  present  day.  It  is  most  improbable 
that  the  Jews  adopted  the  Aramaic  character  for  Biblical 
MSS.  before  the  third  century  B.C.,  and  that  therefore  would 
be  the  earliest  possible  date  for  the  archetype  of  our  present 
Hebrew  copies.-^  Another  proof  that  the  copy  was  not  ex- 
traordinarily old  lies  in  the  spelling.  In  Hebrew,  as  in 
other  languages,  the  rules  of  spelling  varied  in  the  course  of 
centuries,  and  as  we  have  a  genuine  specimen  of  old  Hebrew 


^  Tables  of  the  forms  of  the  Semitic  alphabet  at  various  times,  by  the 
eminent  calligrapher  and  palaeographer,  Prof.  Euting  of  Strassburg,  are 
appended  to  the  English  translation  of  Biekell's  Hebrew  Grammar  (1877), 
and  to  the  latest  edition  of  Kautzsch  -  Gesenius,  Hebr.  Grammatik  (1889). 
Fuller  tables  by  the  same  skilful  hand  are  in  Chwolson's  Corpus  Inscr.  Eel. 
(Petersburg,  \%%2),  ?Ln^  Syrisch-nestor.  Grab inschrif ten  (Petersburg,  1890);  the 
last  also  separately,  Tabula  Scri])turce  Aramaicce  (Strassburg,  1890).  On  the 
history  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  see  Wright,  Lectures  on  the  Comp.  Gram^nar  of 
the  Sem.  Languages  (Cambridge,  1890),  p.  35  sqq. ;  Driver,  Notes  on  Samuel 
(Oxford,  1890),  Introduction ;  and  comp.  the  plates  in  the  Oriental  Series  of  the 
Palffiographical  Society.  The  old  character  must  still  have  been  generally 
understood  when  the  first  Jewish  coins  were  struck  (141  B.C.) ;  for  though 
conservatism  may  explain  its  retention  on  later  coins,  an  obsolete  letter  would 
not  have  been  chosen  by  Simon  when  he  struck  Hebrew  money  for  the  first 
time.  On  the  other  hand,  the  expressions  in  Matt.  v.  18  imply  that  in  the 
time  of  our  Lord  the  Aramaic  script  was  used  ;  for  in  the  old  character  Yod 
("jot ")  was  not  a  very  small  letter.  Indeed,  it  seems  to  be  pretty  well  made 
out  that  parts,  at  least,  of  the  Septuagint  were  translated  from  MSS.  in  the 
Aramaic  character.  See  Toilers  in  Stade's  Zcitschrift,  1883,  p.  230  sqq.,  and 
the  literature  there  cited. 


LECT.  Ill  OUR    HEBREW    BIBLES  7l 

spelling  ill  the  inscription  of  Siloali  (eighth  century  B.C.),  and 
also  possess  a  long  Moabite  inscription  of  still  earlier  date 
and  many  Phoenician  inscriptions  of  different  periods,  evi- 
dence is  not  lacking  to  decide  which  of  two  orthographies  is 
the  older.  Now,  it  can  be  proved  that  the  copies  which  lay 
before  the  translators  of  the  Septuagint  in  the  third,  and  per- 
liaps  in  the  second,  century  B.C.,  often  had  an  older  style  of 
spelling  than  existed  in  the  archetype  of  our  present  Hebrew 
Bibles.  It  does  not  follow  of  necessity  that  in  all  respects 
these  older  MSS.  were  better  and  nearer  to  the  original  text ; 
but  certainly  the  facts  which  we  have  been  developing  give 
a  new  importance  to  the  circumstance  that  the  MSS.  of  the 
LXX.  often  contained  readings  very  different  from  those  of 
our  Hebrew  Bibles,  even  to  the  extent  of  omitting  or  insert- 
ing passages  of  considerable  length. 

In  this  connection  there  is  yet  another  point  worth  notice. 
In  these  times  Hebrew  books  were  costly  and  cumbrous, 
written  on  huge  rolls  of  leather,  not  even  on  the  later  and 
more  convenient  parchment.  Copies  therefore  were  not  very 
numerous,  and,  being  much  handled,  were  apt  to  get  worn 
and  indistinct.  For  not  only  was  leather  an  indifferent 
surface  to  write  on,  but  the  ink  was  of  a  kind  that  could 
be  washed  off,  a  prejudice  existing  against  the  use  of  a 
mordant.-^  No  single  copy,  therefore,  however  excellent,  was 
likely  to  remain  long  in  good  readable  condition  throughout. 
And  we  have  seen  that  collation  of  several  copies,  by  which 

1  That  the  old  Hebrew  ink  could  be  washed  off  appears  from  Numb.  v. 
23,  Exod.  xxxii.  33.  From  the  former  passage  is  derived  the  Rabbinic 
objection  to  the  use  of  a  mordant  in  ink.  See  Sdpherim,  i.  5,  6,  and  the  notes 
in  Miiller's  edition  (Leipzig,  1878)  ;  ]\Iishna,  Sota,  ii.  4,  and  Wagenseil's  Com- 
mentary (Surenh.,  iii.  p.  206  sq.)  The  Jews  laid  no  value  on  old  copies, 
but  in  later  times  prized  certain  ]\ISS.  as  specially  correct.  A  copy  in  Avliich 
a  line  had  become  obliterated,  or  which  was  otherwise  considerably  defective, 
was  cast  aside  into  the  Geniza  or  lumber-room  {Sdiiherhn,  iii.  9).  There  was 
a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  touching-up  faded  letters  {ibid.  8,  and  Miiller's 
note).     Compare  Harkavy  in  Mem.  de  VAcad.  de  S.  Petershourg,  xxiv.  p.  57. 


72  ANTIOCHUS    EPIPHAXES  lect.  hi 

defects  might  have  been  supplied,  was  practised  to  but  a 
small  extent.  Often  indeed  it  must  have  been  difficult  to 
get  manuscripts  to  collate,  and  once  at  least  the  whole 
number  of  Bibles  existing  in  Palestine  was  reduced  to  very 
narrow  limits.  For  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (168  B.C.)  caused 
all  copies  of  the  Law,  and  seemingly  of  the  other  sacred  books, 
to  be  torn  up  and  burnt,  and  made  it  a  capital  offence  to 
possess  a  Pentateuch  (1  ^lac.  i.  56,  57 ;  Josephus,  Ant.  xii.  5, 
§  4).  The  text  of  books  preserved  only  in  manuscript  might 
very  readily  suffer  in  passing  through  such  a  crisis,  and  it  is 
most  providential  that  before  this  time,  the  Law  and  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  had  been  translated  into  Greek 
and  were  current  in  regions  where  Antiochus  had  no  sway. 
This  Greek  version,  called  the  Septuagint,  of  which  the 
greater  part  is  older  than  the  time  of  Antiochus,  still  exists, 
and  supplies,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  Lecture,  the  most 
valuable  evidence  for  the  early  state  of  the  Old  Testament 
text. 


LECTUEE   IV 


We  have  passed  under  review  the  vicissitudes  of  the  Hebrew 
Text,  as  far  back  as  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  We 
have  found  that  all  our  MSS.  go  back  to  one  archetype.  But 
the  archetype  was  not  formed  by  a  critical  process  which  we 
can  accept  as  conclusive.  It  was  not  so  ancient  but  that  a 
long  interval  lay  between  it  and  the  first  hand  of  the  Biblical 
authors  ;  and  the  comparative  paucity  of  books  in  those  early 
times,  combined  with  the  imperfect  materials  used  in  writing, 
and  the  deliberate  attempt  of  Antiochus  to  annihilate  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  exposed  the  text  to  so  many  dangers  that  it 
cannot  but  appear  a  most  welcome  and  providential  circum- 
stance that  the  Greek  translation,  derived  from  MSS.  of 
which  some  at  least  were  presumably  older  than  the  arche- 
type of  our  present  Hebrew  copies,  and  preserved  in  countries 
beyond  the  dominions  of  Antiochus,  offers  an  independent 
witness  to  the  early  state  of  the  Biblical  books,  vindicating 

1  On  the  subject  of  this  Lecture  compare,  iu  general,  "Wellhauscu's  article 
Septuagint  {Enc.  Brit.,  9th  ed.).  The  two  books  which  have  perhaps  done 
most  to  exemplify  the  right  method  of  using  the  Septuagint  for  criticism  of 
the  Hebrew  text  are  Lagarde,  Anmerkungcn  zur  Gricchischcn  Ucbersctzimg  dcr 
Proverbien  (Leipzig,  1863) ;  "Wellhausen,  Der  Text  dcr  Bilcher  Samuelis  (Gott., 
1871).  For  English  students  the  best  practical  introduction  to  the  critical 
use  of  the  LXX.  is  Driver,  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Books  of  Samuel 
(Oxford,  1890).  On  the  relation  of  the  Septuagint  to  the  Palestinian  tradi- 
tion compare  Geiger,  op.  cit.,  and  Frankel,  Ucber  den  Einfluss  der  j^aliistin- 
ischen  Exegcse  auf  die  Alexandrinische  Ilerineneutik  (Leipzig,  1S51}. 


74  VALUE    OF    THE 


LECT.  IV 


the  substantial  accuracy  of  the  transmission  of  these  records ; 
while,  at  the  same  time,  it  displays  a  text  not  yet  fixed  in 
every  point  of  detail,  exhibits  a  series  of  important  various 
readings,  and  sometimes  indicates  the  existence  of  corruptions 
in  the  received  Hebrew  recension — corruptions  which  it  not 
seldom  enables  us  to  remove,  restoring  the  first  hand  of  the 
sacred  authors. 

Nevertheless,  there  have  been  many  scholars  who  altogether 
reject  this  use  of  the  Septuagint.  One  of  the  latest  represent- 
atives of  this  party  is  Keil,  from  whose  Introduction  (Eng. 
trans.,  vol.  ii.  p.  306)  I  quote  the  following  sentences  : — 

"  The  numerous  and  strongly  marked  deviations  [of  the  Septuagint] 
from  the  Massoretic  text  have  arisen  partly  at  a  Later  time,  out  of  the 
carelessness  and  caprice  of  transcribers.  But  in  so  far  as  they  existed 
originally,  almost  in  a  mass  they  are  explained  by  the  uncritical  and 
wanton  passion  for  emendation,  which  led  the  translators  to  alter  the 
original  text  (by  omissions,  additions,  and  transj)ositions)  where  they 
misunderstood  it  in  consequence  of  their  own  defective  knowledge  of 
the  language,  or  where  they  supposed  it  to  be  unsuitable  or  incorrect 
for  historical,  chronological,  dogmatic,  or  other  reasons  ;  or  which,  at 
least,  led  them  to  render  it  inexactly,  according  to  their  own  notions 
and  their  uncertain  conjectures." 

If  this  judgment  were  sound,  we  should  be  deprived  at 
one  blow  of  the  most  ancient  witness  to  the  state  of  the  text ; 
and  certainly,  at  one  time,  the  opinion  advocated  by  Keil 
was  generally  current  among  Protestant  scholars.  We  have 
glanced,  in  a  previous  Lecture  {supra,  p.  32),  at  the  reasons 
which  led  the  early  Protestants  to  place  themselves,  on  points 
of  Hebrew  scholarship,  almost  without  reserve  in  the  hands 
of  the  Jews.  Accepting  the  received  Hebrew  text  as  trans- 
mitted in  the  Jewish  schools,  they  naturally  viewed  with 
distrust  the  very  different  text  of  the  Septuagint.  However, 
the  question  of  the  real  value  of  the  Greek  version  was  stirred 
early  in  the  seventeenth  century,  mainly  by  two  French 
scholars,  one  of  whom  was  a  Catholic,  Jean  Morin  (Morinus), 


LECT.  IV  SEPTUAGINT    VERSION  75 

priest  of  the  Oratory,  the  otlier  a  Protestant,  Louis  Cappelle 
(Cappelhis). 

The  controversy  raised  by  the  publication  of  the  Exercita- 
tiones  BiUiccv  of  Morinus  (Paris,  1633-1660)  was  unduly  pro- 
longed by  the  introduction  of  dogmatic  considerations  which 
should  have  had  no  place  in  a  scholarly  argument  as  to  the 
history  of  the  Biblical  text.  These  considerations  lost  much 
of  their  force  when  all  parties  were  compelled  to  admit  the 
value  of  the  various  readings  of  MSS.  and  versions  for  the 
study  of  the  New  Testament ;  and,  since  theological  prejudice 
was  overcome,  it  has  gradually  become  clear  to  the  vast 
majority  of  conscientious  students  that  the  Septuagint  is 
really  of  the  greatest  value  as  a  witness  to  the  early  history 
of  the  text. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  convey,  in  a  popular  manner,  a 
sufficiently  clear  idea  of  the  arguments  by  which  this  position 
is  established.  Even  the  few  remarks  which  I  shall  make 
may,  I  fear,  seem  to  you  somewhat  tedious ;  but  I  must  ask 
your  attention  for  them,  because  it  is  of  no  slight  consequence 
to  know  whether,  in  this,  the  oldest,  version,  we  have  or  have 
not  a  valuable  testimony  to  the  way  in  which  the  Old  Testa- 
ment has  been  transmitted,  an  independent  basis  for  a  rational 
and  well-argued  belief  as  to  the  state  of  the  Hebrew  text. 

In  judging  of  the  Septuagint  translation,  we  must  not  put 
ourselves  on  the  standpoint  of  a  translator  in  these  days. 
We  must  begin  by  realising  to  ourselves  the  facts  brought 
out  in  Lecture  II.,  that  Jewish  scholars,  before  the  time  of 
Christ,  had  no  grammar  and  no  dictionary;  that  all  their 
knowledge  of  the  language  was  acquired  by  oral  teaching; 
that  their  exegesis  of  difficult  passages  was  necessarily  tradi- 
tional ;  and  that,  where  tradition  failed  them,  they  had  for 
their  guidance  only  that  kind  of  practical  knowledge  of  the 
language  v/hich  they  got  by  the  constant  habit  of  reading  the 
sacred  text,  and  speaking  some  kind  of  Hebrew  among  them- 


76  CHARACTERISTICS    OF  lect.  iv 

selves  in  the  schools.  We  must  also  remember  that,  when 
the  Septuagint  was  composed,  the  Hebrew  language  was 
either  dead  or  dying,  and  that  the  mother- tongue  of  the 
translators  was  either  Greek  or  Aramaic.  Hence  we  must 
not  be  surprised  to  find  that,  when  tradition  was  silent,  the 
Septuagint  translators  made  many  mistakes.  If  they  came 
to  a  difficult  passage,  say  of  a  prophet,  of  which  no  traditional 
interpretation  had  been  handed  down  in  the  schools,  or  which 
contained  words  the  meanings  of  which  had  not  been  taught 
them  by  their  masters,  they  could  do  nothing  better  than 
make  a  guess — sometimes  guided  by  analogies  and  similar 
words  in  Aramaic — sometimes  by  other  considerations.  The 
value  of  the  translation  does  not  lie  in  the  sense  which  they 
put  upon  such  passages,  but  in  the  evidence  that  we  can  find 
as  to  what  Hebrew  words  lay  in  the  ^ISS.  before  them. 

Apart  from  the  inherent  defects  of  scholarship  derived 
entirely  from  tradition,  we  find  that  the  Septuagint  some- 
times varies  from  the  older  text  for  reasons  which  are  at  once 
intelligible  when  we  understand  the  general  principles  of  the 
Scribes  at  the  time.  We  have  already  seen,  for  example,  that 
the  Scribes  in  Palestine  did  not  hesitate  occasionally  to  make 
a  dogmatic  correction,  removing  from  the  writing,  or  at  least 
from  the  reading,  of  Scripture  some  expression  which  they 
thought  it  indecorous  to  pronounce  in  public.  In  like  manner 
we  find  that  the  translators  of  the  Septuagint  sometimes 
changed  a  phrase  which  they  thought  likely  to  be  misunder- 
stood, or  to  be  used  to  establish  some  false  doctrine.  Thus, 
in  the  Hebrew  text  of  Exodus  xxiv.  10,  we  read  that  the 
elders  who  went  up  towards  Sinai  with  ]\Ioses  "  saw  the  God 
of  Israel."  This  anthropomorphic  expression,  it  was  felt, 
could  not  be  rendered  literally  without  lending  some  coun- 
tenance to  the  false  idea  that  the  spiritual  God  can  be  seen 
by  the  bodily  eyes  of  men,  and  offering  an  apparent  contra- 
diction to  Exodus  xxxiii.  20.    The  Septuagint  therefore  changes 


LECT.  IV  THE    SEPT  U  AG  INT   VERSION  7  / 

it,  and  says,  "  They  saw  the  place  where  the  God  of  Israel 
had  stood."  One  change  on  the  text,  made  by  the  Septuagint 
in  deference  to  an  early  and  widespread  Jewish  scruple,  is 
followed  even  in  the  English  Bible.  The  ancient  proper 
name  of  the  God  of  Israel,  which  we  are  accustomed  to  write  as 
Jehovah,  is  habitually  suppressed  by  the  Greek  translators, 
the  word  o  Kvpio^  (A.  V.  the  Lord)  taking  its  place.  This 
agrees  with  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew-speaking  Jews,  who  in 
reading  substituted  Adonai  (the  Lord),  or,  in  certain  cases, 
Elohim  (God),  for  tlie  "  ineffable  name."  So  strictly  was  this 
rule  carried  out  that  the  true  pronunciation  of  the  name  was 
ultimately  forgotten  among  the  Jews  ;  though  several  early 
Christian  writers  had  still  access  to  authentic  information  on 
the  subject.  From  their  testimony,  and  from  a  comparison 
of  the  many  old  Hebrew  proper  names  which  are  compounded 
with  the  sacred  name,  we  can  still  make  out  that  the  true 
pronunciation  is  lahiue.  The  vulgar  form  Jehovah  is  of  very 
modern  origin,  and  arises  from  a  quite  arbitrary  combination 
of  the  true  consonants  with  the  vowel  points  which  the 
Massorets  set  against  the  word  in  all  passages  where  they 
meant  it  to  be  read  Adonai  and  not  Elohim.  Unhappily, 
this  spurious  form  is  now  too  deeply  rooted  among  us  to  be 
displaced,  at  least  in  popular  usage. 

Again,  we  have  already  seen  that  the  interpretation  of 
the  Scribes  was  largely  guided  by  the  Halacha,  that  is,  by 
oral  tradition  ultimately  based  upon  the  common  law  and 
habitual  usage  of  the  sanctuary  and  of  Jerusalem.  The  same 
influence  of  the  Halacha  is  found  in  the  Septuagint  transla- 
tion. Thus,  in  Lev.  xxiv.  7,  where  the  Hebrew  text  bids 
frankincense  be  placed  on  the  shewbread,  the  Septuagint 
makes  it  "  frankincense  and  salt,"  because  salt,  as  well  as 
frankincense,  was  used  in  the  actual  ritual  of  their  period. 

Such  deviations  of  the  Septuagint  as  these  need  not 
seriously  embarrass  the  critic.     He  recognises  the  causes  from 


78  CHARACTERISTICS    OF  lect.  iv 

wliicli  they  came.  He  is  able,  approximately,  to  estimate 
their  extent  by  what  he  knows  of  Palestinian  tradition,  and 
he  is  not  likely,  in  a  case  of  this  sort,  to  be  misled  into  the 
supposition  that  the  Septuagint  had  a  different  text  from  the 
Hebrew.  Once  more,  we  find  that  the  translators  allowed 
themselves  certain  liberties  which  were  also  used  by  copyists 
of  the  time.  Their  object  was  to  give  the  thing  with  perfect 
clearness  as  they  understood  it.  Consequently  they  some- 
times changed  a  "  he  "  into  "  David  "  or  "  Solomon,"  naming 
the  person  alluded  to ;  and  they  had  no  scruple  in  adding  a 
word  or  two  to  complete  the  sense  of  an  obscure  sentence,  or 
supply  what  appeared  to  be  an  ellipsis.  Even  our  extant 
Hebrew  MSS.  indicate  a  tendency  to  make  additions  of  this 
description.  The  original  and  nervous  style  of  early  Hebrew 
prose  was  no  longer  appreciated,  and  a  diffuse  smoothness, 
with  constant  repetition  of  standing  phrases  and  elaborate 
expansion  of  the  most  trifling  incidents,  was  the  classical 
ideal  of  composition.  The  copyist  or  translator  seldom 
omitted  anything  save  by  accident ;  but  he  was  often  tempted 
by  his  notions  of  style  to  venture  on  an  expansion  of  the 
text.  Let  me  take  a  single  example.  In  passages  in  the  Old 
Testament  where  we  read  of  some  one  eating,  a  compas- 
sionate editor,  as  a  recent  critic  humorously  puts  it,  was  pretty 
sure  to  intervene  and  give  him  also  something  to  drink. 
Sometimes  we  find  the  longer  reading  in  the  Septuagint, 
sometimes  in  the  Hebrew  text.  In  1  Samuel  i.  9  the  Hebrew 
tells  us  that  Hannah  rose  up  after  she  had  eaten  in  Shiloh 
and  after  she  had  drunk,  but  the  Septuagint  has  only  the 
shorter  reading,  "After  she  had  eaten."  Conversely,  in 
2  Samuel  xii.  21,  where  the  Hebrew  text  says  only, 
"  Thou  didst  rise  and  eat  bread,"  the  Septuagint  presents 
the  fuller  text,  "Thou  didst  rise  and  eat  bread,  and 
drink."  In  cases  of  this  sort,  the  shorter  text  is  obviously 
the  original. 


LECT.  IV  THE    SEPTUAGINT    VERSION  79 

For  our  present  purpose  these  three  classes  of  variations 
do  not  come  into  account.  First  of  all  we  must  put  aside  the 
cases  where,  having  the  present  Hebrew  text  before  them, 
the  translators  failed  to  understand  it,  simply  because  they 
had  no  tradition  to  guide  them.  AVe  must  not  say  that  they 
were  ignorant  or  capricious,  because  they  were  not  able  to 
make  a  good  grammatical  translation  of  a  difiicult  passage  at 
a  time  when  such  a  thing  as  grammar  or  lexicon  did  not 
exist  even  in  Palestine.  In  the  next  place,  we  must  put  on 
one  side  the  cases  where  the  interpretation  was  influenced  by 
exegetical  considerations  derived  from  the  dogmatic  theology 
of  the  time  or  from  the  traditional  law.  And,  thirdly,  we 
can  attach  no  great  importance  to  those  variations  in  which, 
without  changing  the  sense,  the  translator,  or  perhaps  a 
copyist  before  him,  gave  a  slight  turn  to  an  expression  to 
remove  ambiguity,  or  to  gain  the  diffuse  fulness  which  he 
loved. 

But  after  making  every  allowance  for  these  cases  a  large 
class  of  passages  remains,  in  which  the  Septuagint  presents 
important  variations  from  the  Massoretic  text.  The  test  by 
which  the  value  of  these  variations  can  be  determined  is  the 
method  of  retranslation.  A  faithful  translation  from  Hebrew 
into  an  idiom  so  different  as  the  Greek — especially  such  a 
translation  as  the  Septuagint,  the  work  of  men  who  had  no 
great  command  of  Greek  style — cannot  fail  to  retain  the 
stamp  of  the  original  language.  It  will  be  comparatively 
easy  to  put  it  back  into  idiomatic  Hebrew,  and  even  the 
mistakes  of  the  translator  will  often  point  clearly  to  the 
words  of  the  original  which  he  had  before  him.  But  where 
the  translator  capriciously  departs  from  his  original,  the 
work  of  retranslation  will  at  once  become  more  difficult. 
For  the  capricious  translator  is  one  who  substitutes  his  own 
thought  for  that  of  the  author,  and  what  he  tliinks  in  Greek 
— even  in  lumbering  Jewish  Greek — will  not  so  naturally 


80  VARIOUS    READINGS  lect.  iv 

lend  itself  to  retroversion  into  the  Hebrew  idiom.  The  test 
of  retranslation  gives  a  very  favourable  impression  of  the 
fidelity  of  the  Alexandrian  version.  With  a  little  practice 
one  can  often  put  back  whole  chapters  of  the  Septuagint  into 
Hebrew,  reproducing  the  original  text  almost  word  for  word. 
The  translation  is  not  of  equal  merit  throughout,  and  it  is 
plain  that  the  different  parts  of  the  Bible  were  rendered  by 
men  of  unequal  capacity;  but  in  general,  and  under  the 
limitations  already  indicated,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  trans- 
lators were  competent  scholars  as  scholarship  then  went,  and 
that  they  did  their  work  faithfully  and  in  no  arbitrary  way. 
Now  as  we  proceed  with  the  work  of  retranslation,  and  when 
all  has  gone  on  smoothly  for  perhaps  a  whole  chapter,  in 
which  we  find  no  considerable  deflection  from  the  present 
Hebrew,  we  suddenly  come  to  something  which  the  practised 
hand  has  no  difficulty  in  putting  back  into  Hebrew,  which 
indeed  is  full  of  such  characteristic  Hebrew  idiom  that  it  is 
impossible  to  ascribe  it  to  the  caprice  of  a  translator  thinking 
in  Greek,  but  which,  nevertheless,  diverges  from  the  Massoretic 
text.  In  such  cases  we  can  be  morally  certain  that  a  various 
reading  existed  in  the  Hebrew  MS.  from  which  the  Septuagint 
was  derived.  Nay,  in  some  passages,  the  moral  certainty 
becomes  demonstrative,  for  we  find  that  the  translator 
stumbled  on  a  word  which  he  was  unable  to  render  into 
Greek,  and  that  he  contented  himself  with  transcribing  it  in 
Greek  letters.  A  Hebrew  word  thus  bodily  transferred  to 
the  pages  of  the  Septuagint,  and  yet  differing  from  what  we 
now  read  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles,  constitutes  a  various  reading 
which  cannot  be  explained  away.  An  example  of. this  is 
found  in  1  Sam.  xx.,  in  the  account  of  the  arrangement  made 
between  Jonathan  and  David  to  determine  the  real  state  of 
Saul's  disposition  towards  the  latter.  In  the  Hebrew  text 
(ver.  19)  Jonathan  directs  David  to  be  in  hiding  "by  the 
stone  Ezel :"  and  at  verse  41,  when  the  plan  agreed  on  has 


OF    THE    SEPTUAGINT 


been  carried  out,  David  at  a  given  signal  emerges  "  from 
beside  the  Negeb."  The  Negeb  is  a  district  in  the  south  of 
JudcTa,  remote  from  tlie  city  of  Saul,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
which  the  events  of  our  chapter  took  place  ;  and  the  attempt 
of  the  English  version  to  smooth  away  the  difficulty  is  not 
satisfactory  either  in  point  of  grammar  or  of  sense.  But  the 
Septuagint  makes  the  whole  thing  clear.  At  verse  19  the 
Greek  reads  "  beside  yonder  Ergab,"  and  at  verse  41  "  David 
arose  from  the  Ergab."  Urgah  is  the  transcription  in  Greek 
of  a  rare  Hebrew  word  signifying  a  cairn  or  rude  monument 
of  stone,  which  does  not  occur  elsewhere  except  as  a  proper 
name  (Argob).  The  translators  transliterated  the  word 
because  they  did  not  understand  it,  and  the  reading  of 
the  Massoretic  text,  which  involves  no  considerable 
change  in  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew,  probably  arose  from 
similar  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  Palestinian 
copyists. 

The  various  readings  of  the  Septuagint  are  not  always  so 
happy  as  in  this  case  ;  but  in  selecting  some  further  examples, 
it  will  be  most  instructive  for  us  to  confine  ourselves  to 
passages  where  the  Greek  gives  a  better  reading  than  the 
Hebrew,  and  where  its  superiority  can  be  made  tolerably 
manifest  even  in  an  English  rendering.  It  must,  however, 
be  remembered  that  complete  proof  that  the  corruption  lies 
on  the  side  of  the  Hebrew  and  not  of  the  Greek  can  be 
offered  only  to  those  who  understand  these  languages.  Our 
first  example  shall  be  1  Sam.  xiv.  18. 


Hehreiv. 
And  Saul  said  to  Aliiah,  Bring 
hither  the  ark  of  God.  For  the 
ark  of  God  was  on  that  day  and 
[not  as  E.  V.  with]  the  children 
of  Israel. 


Septuagint. 
And  Saul  said  to  Aliiah,  Bring 
hither  the  ephod,  for  he  bare  the 
ephod  on  that  day  before  Israel. 


The  Authorised  Version  smooths  away  one  difficulty  of 

6 


82  VARIOUS    READINGS  lect.  iv 

the  Hebrew  text  at  the  expense  of  grammar.  But  there  are 
other  difficulties  behind.  The  ark  was  then  at  Gibeah  of 
Kirjath-jearim  (1  Sam.  vii.  1  ;  2  Sam.  vi.  3),  quite  a  different 
place  from  Gibeah  of  Benjamin ;  and  its  priest  was  not 
Ahiah,  but  Eleazar  ben  Abinadab.  Besides,  Saul's  object 
was  to  seek  an  oracle,  and  this  was  done,  not  by  means  of 
the  ark,  but  by  the  sacred  lot  connected  with  the  ephod  of 
the  priest  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  6,  9).  This  is  what  the  Septuagint 
actually  brings  out,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  pre- 
serves the  right  reading.  The  changes  on  the  Hebrew  letters 
required  to  get  the  one  reading  out  of  the  other  are  far  less 
considerable  than  one  would  imagine  from  the  English. 

Another  example  is  the  death  of  Ishbosheth  (2  Sam.  iv. 
5,  6,  7) :— 


Hebrew. 
[The  assassins]  came  to  the 
house  of  Ishbosheth  in  the  hottest 
part  of  the  day,  while  he  was 
taking  his  midday  siesta.  (6) 
And  hither  they  came  into  the 
midst  of  the  house  fetching  wheat, 
and  smote  him  in  the  flank,  and 
Rechab  and  Baanah  his  brother 
escaped.  (7)  And  they  came  into 
the  house  as  he  lay  on  his  bed, 
.  .  .  and  smote  him  and  slew  him, 
etc. 


Septuagint. 
They  came  to  the  house  of 
Ishbosheth  in  the  hottest  part  of 
the  clay,  while  he  was  taking  his 
midday  siesta.  And  lo,  the  woman 
who  kept  the  door  of  the  house 
was  cleaning  wheat,  and  she  slum- 
bered and  slept,  and  the  brothers 
Rechab  and  Baanah  passed  in  un- 
observed and  came  into  the  house 
as  Ishbosheth  lay  on  his  bed,  etc. 


In  the  Hebrew  there  is  a  meaningless  repetition  in 
verse  7  of  what  has  already  been  fully  explained  in  the  two 
preceding  verses.  The  Septuagint  text  gives  a  clear  and  pro- 
gressive narrative,  and  one  which  no  "  capricious  translator  " 
could  have  derived  out  of  his  own  head.  As  in  the  previous 
case,  the  two  readings  are  very  like  one  another  when  written 
in  the  Hebrew. 

Another  reading,  long  ago  appealed  to  by  Dathe  as  one 
which  no  man  familiar  with  the  style  of  the  translator  could 


OF    THE    SEPTUAGINT 


83 


credit  him  witli  inventing,  is  found  in  Aliitlioplitd's  advice  to 
Absalom  (2  Sam.  xvii.  3) : — 


Hehmr. 
I  will  bring  back  all  the  people 
to  thee.  Like  the  return  of  the 
whole  is  the  man  whom  thou 
seekest.  All  the  people  shall 
have  peace. 


Se2)tuagint. 
I  will  make  all  the  people  turn 
to  thee  as  a  bride  turnetli  to  her 
husband.  Thou  seekest  the  life 
of  but  one  man,  and  all  the  people 
shall  have  peace. 


The  cumbrousness  of  the  Hebrew  text  is  manifest.  The 
Septuagint,  on  the  contrary,  introduces  a  graceful  simile, 
thoroughly  natural  in  the  picturesque  and  poetically-coloured 
language  of  ancient  Israel,  but  wholly  unlike  the  style  of  the 
prosaic  age  when  the  translator  worked. 

The  Books  of  Samuel,  from  which  these  examples  are 
selected,  are,  on  the  whole,  the  part  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
which  the  value  of  the  Septuagint  is  most  manifest  and  most 
generally  recognised.  The  Hebrew  text  has  many  obscurities 
which  can  only  be  explained  as  due  to  faulty  transmission, 
and  the  variations  of  the  Septuagint  are  numerous  and  often 
good.  In  the  Pentateuch,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Septuagint 
seldom  departs  far  from  the  Hebrew  text,  and  its  variations 
seldom  give  a  better  reading.  This  is  just  what  we  should 
expect,  for  from  a  very  early  date  the  Law  was  read  in  the 
synagogues  every  Sabbath  day  (Acts  xv.  21)  in  regular 
course,  the  whole  being  gone  through  in  a  cycle  of  three 
years.  The  Jews  thus  became  so  familiar  with  the  words  of 
the  Pentateuch  that  copyists  were  in  great  measure  secured 
from  important  errors  of  transcription ;  and  it  is  also  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  the  rolls  written  for  the  synagogue  were 
transcribed  with  special  care  long  before  the  full  development 
of  the  elaborate  precautions  which  were  ultimately  devised  to 
exclude  errors  from  all  the  sacred  books.  Sections  from  the 
prophetic  books  were  also  read  in  the  synagogue  (Acts  xiii.  15), 
but  not  in  a  complete  and  systematic  manner.     At  the  time 


84  ORIGIN   OF 


of  Christ,  indeed,  it  would  seem  that  the  reader  had  a  certain 
freedom  of  choice  in  the  prophetic  lessons  (Luke  iv.  17). 
Such  books  as  Samuel,  again,  had  little  place  in  the  syna- 
gogue service,  while  the  interest  of  the  narrative  caused 
them  to  be  largely  read  in  private.  But  private  study  gave 
no  such  guarantee  against  the  introduction  of  various  readings 
as  was  afforded  by  use  in  public  worship.  Private  readers 
must  no  doubt  have  often  been  content  to  purchase  or  tran- 
scribe indifferent  copies,  and  a  student  might  not  hesitate  to 
make  on  his  own  copy  notes  or  small  additions  to  facilitate 
the  sense,  or  even  to  add  a  paragraph  which  he  had  derived 
from  another  source,  a  procedure  of  which  we  shall  find 
examples  by  and  by.  Under  such  circumstances,  and  in  the 
absence  of  official  supervision,  the  multiplication  of  copies 
opened  an  easy  door  to  the  multiplication  of  errors ;  which 
might,  no  doubt,  have  been  again  eliminated  by  a  critical 
collation,  but  might  very  easily  become  permanent  when,  as 
we  have  seen,  a  single  copy,  without  critical  revision,  acquired 
the  position  of  the  standard  manuscript,  to  wdiich  all  new 
transcripts  ^vere  to  be  conformed. 

In  general,  then,  we  must  conclude,  first,  that  many 
various  readings  once  existed  in  MSS.  of  the  Old  Testament 
w^hich  have  totally  disappeared  from  the  extant  Hebrew 
copies  ;  and,  further,  that  the  range  and  distribution  of  these 
variations  were  in  part  connected  with  the  fact  that  all  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  had  not  an  equal  place  in  the  official 
service  of  the  synagogue.  But  the  force  of  these  observations 
is  sometimes  met  by  an  argument  directed  to  depreciate  the 
value  of  the  Septuagint  variations.  It  is  not  denied  that 
the  MSS.  which  lay  before  the  Greek  translators  contained 
various  readings  ;  but  it  is  urged  that  these  MSS.  were  pre- 
sumably of  Egyptian  origin,  and  that  the  Jews  of  Egypt  had 
probably  to  content  themselves  wdth  inferior  copies,  trans- 
mitted and  multiplied  by  the  hands  of  scholars  who  were 


LECT.  IV  THE    SEPTUAGINT  85 

neither  so  learned  nor  so  scrupulous  as  the  Scribes  of 
Jerusalem.  Upon  this  view  we  are  invited  to  look  upon  the 
Septuagint  as  the  witness  to  a  corrupt  Egyptian  recension  of 
the  text,  the  various  readings  in  which  deserve  little  atten- 
tion, and  afford  no  evidence  that  Palestinian  MSS.  did  not 
agree  even  at  an  early  period  with  the  present  Massoretic  text. 

We  have  already  seen  that  this  view  is  at  any  rate  ex- 
aggerated, for  we  have  had  cases  before  us  in  which  no  sober 
critic  will  hesitate  to  prefer  the  so-called  Egyptian  reading. 
But  further  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  whole  theory  of  a 
uniform  Palestinian  recension  is  a  pure  hypothesis.  There  is 
not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  there  was  a  uniform  Palestinian 
text  in  the  sense  in  which  our  present  Hebrew  Bibles  are 
uniform — or,  in  other  words,  to  the  exclusion  even  of  such 
variations  and  corruptions  as  are  found  in  MSS.  of  the  Xew 
Testament — before  the  first  century  of  our  era.  Nay,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  a  Palestinian 
scholar  of  the  first  century,  used  a  Hebrew  Bible  which  often 
agreed  with  the  Septuagint  or  the  Samaritan  recension  against 
the  Massoretic  text  {suiora,  p.  62). 

But  let  us  look  at  the  history  of  the  Greek  translation, 
and  see  what  ground  of  fact  there  is  for  supposing  that  it  was 
made  from  inferior  copies,  and  could  pass  muster  only  in  a 
land  of  inferior  scholarship.  The  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
Septuagint  version  of  the  Law  which  was  current  in  the  time 
of  Christ,  and  may  be  read  in  Josephus  and  Eusebius,  is  full 
of  fabulous  embellishments,  designed  to  establish  the  authority 
of  the  version  as  miraculously  composed  under  divine  inspira- 
tion. The  source  of  these  fables  is  an  epistle  purporting  to  be 
written  by  one  Aristeas,  a  courtier  in  Alexandria  under  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus  (283-24:7  B.C.).'      This  epistle  is  a  forgery,  but  the 

^  Critical  edition  of  tlie  text  of  the  letter  of  Aristeas  to  Philocrates,  by  M. 
Schmidt,  in  ]\Ierx's  Archiv,  i.  241  5^.  (Halle,  1870).  It  is  unnecessarj^  to 
sketch  its  contents,  for  which  the  English  reader  may  turn  to  the  translations 
of  Eusebius  and  Josephus.     "What  basis  of  truth  underlies  the  fables  depends 


86  HELLENISTS    AND 


author  seems  to  have  linked  on  his  fabulous  stories  to  some 
element  of  current  tradition ;  and  there  is  other  evidence  that 
in  the  second  century  B.C.  the  uniform  tradition  of  the  Jews 
in  Egypt  was  to  the  effect  that  the  Greek  Pentateuch  was 
written  for  Ptolemy  11.  Philadelphus,  to  be  placed  in  the 
royal  library  collected  by  Demetrius  Phalereus.  This  tradi- 
tion is  not  wholly  improbable,  and  at  all  events  the  date  to 
which  it  leads  us  has  generally  commended  itself  to  the 
judgment  of  scholars;  it  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the 
fragments  of  the  Jew,  Demetrius,  who  wrote  a  Greek  history 
of  the  kings  of  Judaea  under  Ptolemy  IV.  (222-205  B.C.), 
betray  acquaintance  with  the  Septuagint  Pentateuch.  The 
other  books  were  translated  later,  but  they  probably  followed 
pretty  fast.  The  author  of  the  prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus, 
who  wrote  in  Egypt  about  130  B.C.,  speaks  of  the  law,  the 
prophets,  and  the  other  books  of  the  fathers,  as  current  in 
Greek  in  his  time.  The  Septuagint  version,  then,  was  made 
in  Egypt  under  the  Ptolemies.  Under  these  princes  the 
Jewish  colony  in  Egypt  was  not  a  poor  or  oppressed  body ; 
it  was  very  numerous,  very  influential  Jews  held  important 
posts  in  the  kingdom,  and  formed  a  large  element  in  the 
population  of  Alexandria.  Their  wealth  was  so  great  that 
they  were  able  to  make  frequent  pilgrimages  and  send  many 
rich  gifts  to  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem.  They  stood,  therefore, 
on  an  excellent  footino;  with  the  authorities  of  the  nation  in 
Palestine,  and  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  they 
were  regarded  as  heretics,  using  an  inferior  Bible,  or  in 
any  way  falling  short  of  all  the  requisites  of  true  Judaism. 
There  was,  indeed,  a  schismatic  temple  in  Egypt,  at  Leonto- 
polis ;  but  that  temple,  so  far  as  we  can  gather,  by  no  means 
attracted  to  it  the  service  and  the  worship  of  the  greater  part 

mainly  on  the  genuineness  of  the  fragments  of  Aristobulus.  See  on  the  one 
side  "Wellhausen-Bleek,  §  279,  on  the  other  Kuenen's  Religion  of  Israel,  note 
1  to  chap.  xi.  For  Demetrius  see  Schiirer,  op.  cit.  voL  ii.  \).  730,  and  for 
Aristobulus,  ibid.  p.  760  ;  see  also  ibid.  p.  697  sqq.,  p.  819  sqq. 


PALESTINIANS  87 


of  the  Greek-speaking  Jews  in  Egypt.  Their  hearts  still 
turned  towards  Jerusalem,  and  their  intercourse  with  Pales- 
tine was  too  familiar  and  frequent  to  suffer  them  to  fall  into 
the  position  of  an  isolated  and  ignorant  sect. 

All  this  makes  it  highly  improbable  that  the  Jews  of 
Egypt  would  have  contented  themselves  with  a  translation 
below  the  standard  of  Palestine,  or  that  they  would  have 
found  any  difficulty  in  procuring  manuscripts  of  the  approved 
official  recension,  if  such  a  recension  had  then  existed.  But 
the  argument  may  be  carried  further.  In  the  time  of  Christ 
there  were  many  Hellenistic  Jews  resident  in  Jerusalem, 
with  synagogues  of  their  own,  where  the  Greek  version  was 
necessarily  in  regular  use.  We  find  these  Hellenists  in  Acts 
vi.,  living  on  the  best  terms  with  the  religious  authorities  of 
the  capital.  Hellenists  and  Hebrews,  the  Septuagint  and  the 
original  text,  met  in  Jerusalem  without  schism  or  controversy. 
Yet  many  of  the  Palestinian  scholars  were  familiar  with 
Greek,  and  Paul  cannot  have  been  the  only  man  born  in  the 
Hellenistic  dispersion,  and  accustomed  from  infancy  to  the 
Greek  version,  who  afterwards  studied  under  Palestinian 
doctors,  and  became  equally  familiar  with  the  Hebrew  text. 
The  divergences  of  the  Septuagint  must  have  been  patent 
to  all  Jerusalem.  Yet  we  find  no  attempt  to  condemn 
and  suppress  this  version  till  the  second  century,  when 
the  rise  of  the  new  school  of  exegesis,  and  the  consequent 
introduction  of  a  fixed  official  text,  were  followed  by  the 
discreditincj  of  the  old  Greek  Bible  in  favour  of  the  new 
translation  by  Aquila.  On  the  contrary,  early  Eabbinical 
tradition  expressly  recognises  the  Greek  version  as  legiti- 
mate. In  some  passages  of  the  Jewish  books  mention  is 
made  of  thirteen  places  in  which  those  who  "  wrote  for 
Ptolemy "  departed  from  the  Hebrew  text.  But  these 
chancres,  which  are  similar  in  character  to  the  "corrections 
of  the    Scribes "    spoken   of  in    the   last    Lecture,    are    not 


88  JEWISH   ESTIMATE 


reprehended;  and  in  one  form  of  the  tradition  they  are 
even  said  to  have  been  made  by  divine  inspiration.  The 
account  of  these  thirteen  passages  contains  mistakes  which 
show  that  the  tradition  was  written  down  after  the  Septu- 
agint  had  ceased  to  be  a  familiar  book  in  Palestine.  It 
is  remarkable  that  the  graver  variations  of  the  Egyptian 
text  are  passed  over  in  absolute  silence,  and  had  apparently 
fallen  into  oblivion.  But  the  tradition  recalls  a  time  w^hen 
Hebrew  scholars  knew  the  Greek  version  well,  and  noted 
its  variations  in  a  spirit  of  friendly  tolerance.  These  facts 
are  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  the  Egyptian 
text  was  viewed  as  corrupt.  To  the  older  Jewish  tradition 
its  variations  appeared,  not  in  the  light  of  deviations  from 
an  acknowledged  standard,  but  as  features  fairly  within 
the  limits  of  a  faithful  transmission  or  interpretation  of 
the  text.-^  And  so  the  comparison  of  the  Septuagint  with 
the  Hebrew  Bible  not  merely  furnishes  us  with  fresh  critical 
material  for  the  text  of  individual  passages,  but  supplies 
a  measure  of  the  limits  of  variation  which  were  tolerated 


^  Compare  Morinus,  Excrcitatio  viii.  In  Mishna,  Megilla,  i.  8,  we  read, 
"The  Scriptures  maybe  written  in  every  tongue.  R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel 
says  they  did  not  suffer  the  Scriptures  to  be  written  except  in  Greek."  On 
this  the  Gemara  observes,  "  R.  Judah  said,  that  when  our  Eabbins  permitted 
writing  in  Greek,  they  did  so  only  for  the  Torah,  and  hence  arose  the  transla- 
tion made  for  King  Ptolemy,"  etc.  So  Josephus,  though  an  orthodox  Pharisee, 
makes  use  of  the  LXX.,  even  where  it  departs  from  the  Hebrew  (1  Esdras). 
The  thirteen  variations  are  given  in  the  Gemara,  ut  supra,  and  in  Sopherim,  i. 
9.  In  both  places  God  is  said  to  have  guided  the  seventy-two  translators,  so 
that,  writing  separately,  all  gave  one  sense.  Side  by  side  with  this  favour- 
able estimate,  Soph.  i.  8,  following  the  glosses  on  Megillath  TaanWi,  gives 
the  later  hostile  tradition,  which  it  supposes  to  refer  to  a  different  version. 
"That  day  Avas  a  hard  day  for  Israel — like  the  day  when  they  made  the 
golden  calf,"  because  the  Torah  could  not  be  adequately  translated.  See 
further,  on  the  gradual  growth  of  the  prejudice  against  the  Greek  translation, 
Miiller's  note,  op.  cit.  p.  11.  Jerome,  following  the  text  supplied  by  Jewish 
tradition,  will  have  it  that  the  LXX.  translators  purposely  concealed  from 
Ptolemy  the  mysteries  of  faith,  especially  the  prophecies  referring  to  the 
advent  of  Christ.  See  Qucest.  in  G&n.  p.  2  (ed.  Lagarde,  1868),  and  Fraef. 
ill  Pent. 


LECT.  IV  OF    THE    SEPTUAGINT  89 

two  hundred  years  after  Ezra,  when  the  version  was  first 
written,  and  indeed  from  that  time  downwards  until  the 
apostolic  age.  For  in  the  times  of  the  New  Testament  the 
Greek  and  Hebrew  Bibles  were  current  side  by  side;  and 
men  like  the  apostles,  who  knew  both  languages,  used 
either  text  indifferently,  or  even  quoted  the  Old  Testament 
from  memory,  as  Paul  often  does,  with  a  laxness  surprising 
to  the  reader  who  judges  by  a  modern  rule,  but  very  natural 
in  the  condition  of  the  text  which  we  have  just  characterised. 
It  may  be  observed  in  passing  that  these  considerations  re- 
move a  great  part  of  the  difficulties  which  are  commonly  felt 
to  attach  to  the  citations  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New. 

When  we  say  that  the  readings  of  the  Septuagint  afford  a 
fair  measure  of  the  limits  of  variation  in  the  early  history  of 
the  text,  it  is  by  no  means  implied  that  the  Greek  version, 
taken  as  a  whole,  is  as  valuable  as  the  Hebrew  text.  A 
translation  can  never  supply  the  place  of  a  manuscript.  There 
is  always  an  allowance  to  be  made  for  errors  and  licences  of 
interpretation,  and  the  allowance  is  necessarily  large  in  the 
case  of  the  Septuagint,  which  was  the  first  attempt  at  a  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible,  and  perhaps  the  first  considerable  transla- 
tion ever  made.  Thus,  even  if  we  possessed  the  Septuagint 
in  its  original  form  it  would  be  necessary  to  use  it  with  great 
caution  as  an  instrument  of  textual  criticism.  But  in  reality 
this  use  of  the  Septuagint  is  made  greatly  more  difficult  and 
uncertain  by  many  corruptions  which  it  underwent  in  the 
course  of  transmission.  The  Greek  text  was  in  a  deplorable 
state  even  in  the  days  of  Origen,  in  the  first  half  of  the  third 
Christian  century.  In  his  Hexaplar  Bible,  in  which  the 
Hebrew,  the  Septuagint,  and  the  later  Greek  versions  were 
arranged  in  parallel  columns,  Origen  made  a  notable  attempt 
to  purify  the  text,  and  indicate  its  variations  from  the  Hebrew. 
But  the  use  made  of  Origen's  labours  by  later  generations 
rather  increased  the  mischief,  and  in  the  present  day  it  is  an 


90  TEXTUAL   AND  lect.  iv 

affair  of  the  most  delicate  scholarship  to  make  profitable  use 
of  the  Alexandrian  version  for  the  confirmation  or  emenda- 
tion of  the  Hebrew.  The  work  has  often  fallen  into  incom- 
petent hands,  and  their  rashness  is  a  chief  reason  why  cautious 
scholars  are  still  apt  to  look  with  unjustifiable  indifference 
on  what,  after  all,  is  our  oldest  witness  to  the  history  of  the 
text  of  the  Old  Testament. 

For  our  present  purpose  it  is  not  necessary  that  I  should 
conduct  you  over  the  delicate  ground  which  cannot  be  safely 
trodden  save  by  the  most  experienced  scholarship.  My  object 
will  be  attained  if  I  succeed  in  conveying  to  you  by  a  few 
plain  examples  a  just  conception  of  the  methods  of  the 
ancient  copyists  as  they  stand  revealed  to  us  in  the  broader 
differences  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint.  It  will 
conduce  to  clearness  if  I  indicate  at  the  outset  the  conclusions 
to  which  these  differences  appear  to  point,  and  the  proof  of 
which  will  be  specially  contemplated  in  the  details  which  I 
shall  presently  set  before  you.  I  shall  endeavour  to  show 
that  the  comparison  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts  carries 
us  beyond  the  sphere  of  mere  verbal  variations,  with  which 
textual  criticism  is  generally  busied,  and  introduces  us  to  a 
series  of  questions  affecting  the  composition,  the  editing,  and 
the  collection  of  the  sacred  books.  This  class  of  questions 
forms  the  special  subject  of  the  branch  of  critical  science 
which  is  usually  distinguished  from  the  verbal  criticism  of 
the  text  by  the  name  of  Higher  or  Historical  Criticism.  The 
value  of  textual  criticism  is  now  admitted  on  all  hands. 
The  first  collections  of  various  readings  for  the  New  Testa- 
ment excited  sfreat  alarm,  but  it  w^as  soon  seen  to  be  absurd 
to  quarrel  w4th  facts.  Various  readings  were  actually  found 
in  MSS.,  and  it  was  necessary  to  make  the  best  of  them.  But 
while  textual  criticism  admittedly  deals  with  facts,  the  higher 
criticism  is  often  supposed  to  have  no  other  basis  than  tlie 
subjective  fancies  and  arbitrary  hypotheses  of  scholars.   When 


HIGHER    CRITICISM  91 


critics  maintain  that  some  Old  Testament  writin<^s,  tradi- 
tionally  ascribed  to  a  single  hand,  are  really  of  composite 
origin,  and  that  many  of  the  Hebrew  books  have  gone  through 
successive  redactions — or,  in  other  words,  have  been  edited 
and  re-edited  in  different  ages,  receiving  some  addition  or 
modification  at  the  hand  of  each  editor — it  is  often  supposed 
that  these  are  mere  idle  theories  unsupported  by  evidence. 
Here  it  is  that  the  Septuagint  comes  in  to  justify  the  critics. 
The  variations  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  text  reveal  to  us  a 
time  when  the  functions  of  copyist  and  editor  shaded  into 
one  another  by  imperceptible  degrees.  They  not  only  prove 
that  Old  Testament  books  were  subjected  to  such  processes 
of  successive  editing  as  critics  maintain,  but  that  the  work  of 
redaction  went  on  to  so  late  a  date  that  editorial  changes  are 
found  in  the  present  Hebrew  text  which  did  not  exist  in  the 
MSS.  of  the  Greek  translators.  The  details  of  the  evidence 
will  make  my  meaning  more  clear,  but  in  general  what  I 
desire  to  impress  upon  you  is  this.  The  evidence  of  the 
Septuagint  proves  that  early  copyists  had  a  very  different  view 
of  their  responsibility  from  that  which  we  might  be  apt  to 
ascribe  to  them.  They  were  not  reckless  or  indifferent  to 
the  truth.  They  copied  the  Old  Testament  books  knowing 
them  to  be  sacred  books,  and  they  were  zealous  to  preserve 
them  as  writings  of  Divine  authority.  But  their  sense  of 
responsibility  to  the  Divine  word  regarded  the  meaning 
rather  than  the  form,  and  they  had  not  that  highly- developed 
sense  of  the  importance  of  preserving  every  word  and  every 
letter  of  tlie  original  hand  of  the  author  which  seems  natural 
to  us.  ^Yllen  we  look  at  the  matter  carefully,  we  observe 
that  the  difference  between  them  and  us  lies,  not  in  any 
religious  principle,  but  in  the  literary  ideas  of  those  ancient 
times.  From  our  point  of  view  a  book  is  the  property  of  the 
author.  You  may  buy  a  copy  of  it,  but  you  do  not  thereby 
acquire  a  literary  property  in  the  work,  or  a  right  to  tamper 


92  METHODS   OF  lect.  iv 

with  the  style  and  alter  the  words  of  the  author  even  to  make 
his  sense  more  distinct.  But  this  idea  was  too  subtle  for 
those  ancient  times.  The  man  who  had  bought  or  copied  a 
book  held  it  to  be  his  own  for  every  purpose.  He  valued  it 
for  its  contents,  and  therefore  would  not  disfigure  these  by 
arbitrary  changes.  But,  if  he  could  make  it  more  convenient 
for  use  by  adding  a  note  here,  putting  in  a  word  there,  or 
incorporating  additional  matter  derived  from  another  source, 
he  had  no  hesitation  in  doing  so.  In  short,  every  ancient 
scholar  who  copied  or  annotated  a  book  for  his  own  use  was 
very  much  in  the  position  of  a  modern  editor,  with  the  differ- 
ence that  at  that  time  there  was  no  system  of  footnotes, 
brackets,  and  explanatory  prefaces,  by  wdiich  the  insertions 
could  be  distinguished  from  the  original  text. 

In  setting  before  you  some  examples  of  the  evidence 
which  enables  us  to  prove  this  thesis,  I  shall  begin  with  the 
question  of  the  titles  which  are  prefixed  to  some  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament.  And  here  it  is  proper  to  explain  that  the 
general  titles  prefixed  to  the  several  books  in  the  English 
Bible,  such  as  "  The  First  Book  of  Moses  called  Genesis," 
"  The  Book  of  the  Prophet  Isaiah,"  and  so  forth,  are  no  part 
of  the  Hebrew  text.  Even  the  shorter  titles  of  the  same  kind 
found  in  our  common  printed  Hebrew  Bibles  lack  manuscript 
authority.  The  only  titles  that  form  an  integral  part  of  the 
textual  tradition  are  those  which  appear  in  the  English  Bible 
in  the  body  of  the  text  itself — such  titles,  for  example,  as 
are  contained  in  Proverbs  i.  1,  x.  1,  xxv.  1,  or  in  Isaiah  i.  1, 
xiii.  1,  etc.  etc.  This  being  understood,  it  immediately 
appears  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  anonymous.  The  Pentateuch,  for  example,  bears 
no  author's  name  on  its  front,  although  certain  things  in  the 
course  of  the  narrative  are  said  to  have  been  written  down 
by  Moses.  All  the  historical  books  are  anonymous,  with  the 
single  exception  of  one  of  the  latest  of  them,  the  memoirs  of 


EARLY    COPYISTS 


Kebemiali,  in  wliicli  the  authors  name  is  pretixed  to  the  first 
chapter.  This  fact  is  characteristic.  Why  do  tlie  authors 
not  give  their  names  ?  Because  the  literary  public  was  in- 
terested in  the  substance  of  the  history,  but  was  not  concerned 
to  know  who  had  written  it. 

To  give  this  observation  its  just  weight,  we  must  remem- 
ber that  most  of  the  historical  books  are  not  contemporary 
memoirs,  written  from  personal  observation,  but  compila- 
tions, extending  over  long  periods,  for  which  tlie  authors 
must  have  drawn  largely  from  earlier  sources,  or  from  oral 
tradition.  Moreover,  the  frequent  changes  of  style  and  other 
marks  of  composite  authorship  w^iich  occur  in  these  histories 
prove  that  the  work  of  compilation  largely  consisted  in 
piecing  together  long  quotations  from  older  books.  In  such 
circumstances  a  modest  compiler  might  very  well  prefer  to 
remain  anonymous  ;  but  then,  according  to  modern  ideas  of 
the  way  in  which  literary  work  should  be  done,  he  ought  to 
have  given  full  and  careful  indications  of  the  sources  from 
which  he  drew.  In  the  Book  of  Kings  reference  is  habitually 
made,  for  certain  particulars  in  the  political  history  of  each 
reign,  to  the  official  chronicles  of  the  sovereigns  of  Judah 
and  Israel,  and  in  2  Sam.  i.  18  a  poem  of  David  is  quoted 
from  the  Book  of  Jashar,  which  is  also  cited  in  Josh.  x.  13. 
But  for  tlie  mass  of  the  narrative  of  the  Earlier  Prophets 
(Joshua — Kings)  the  compilers  give  no  indication  of  the 
sources  from  which  they  worked.  In  short,  the  whole  his- 
torical literature  of  Israel  before  the  Exile  is  written  by  and 
for  men  whose  interest  in  the  story  of  the  nation  was  not 
combined  with  any  interest  in  the  hands  by  which  the  story  had 
been  first  set  forth,  or  from  time  to  time  reshaped.  To  tliese 
ages  a  book  was  a  book,  to  be  taken  or  rejected  on  its  internal 
merits,  without  regard  to  the  personality  that  lay  l)ehind  it. 

And  this  feeling  was  not  confined  to  historical  books. 
No  ancient  poem  excites  in  the  modern  mind  a  more  ea'-'-er 


94  ANCIENT    BOOKS  lect.  iv 

curiosity  as  to  the  personality  of  the  author  than  the  wonder- 
ful Book  of  Job.  We  can  understand  that  hymns  like  some 
of  the  Psalms,  which  speak  the  common  feelings  of  all  pious 
minds,  are  appropriately  left  anonymous.  But  the  Book  of 
Job  is  an  individual  creation,  as  clearly  stamped  with  the 
impress  of  a  great  personality  as  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah. 
And  yet  the  author  is  nameless  and  unknown. 

The  only  part  of  the  older  Hebrew  literature  in  which 
the  rule  of  anonymity  does  not  prevail  is  the  prophetical 
books.  And  the  reason  for  this  is  obvious.  Most  of  the  pro- 
phets— to  say  all  would  be  to  prejudge  a  question  that  must 
come  before  us  presently — were  preachers  first  of  all,  and 
writers  only  in  the  second  instance.  Their  books  are  not 
products  of  the  closet,  but  summaries  of  a  course  of  public 
activity,  in  which  the  personality  of  the  preacher  could  not 
be  separated  from  his  words.  And  so  their  books  make  no 
exception  to  the  rule  that  in  old  Israel  a  man  could  not 
make  himself  known  and  perpetuate  his  name  by  literary 
labours.  If  a  man  was  already  prominent  in  the  eyes  of 
his  contemporaries,  and  wrote,  as  he  spoke,  with  the  weight  of 
a  public  character,  he  had  a  reason  to  put  his  name  to  his 
books,  and  others  had  a  reason  for  remembering  what  he  had 
written ;  but  not  otherwise.  Even  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  the 
only  names  that  occur  in  the  titles  are  those  of  famous  his- 
torical characters — Moses,  David,  Solomon  ;  and  possibly,  for 
here  the  individual  reference  of  the  names  is  doubtful,  those 
of  the  founders  and  ancestors  of  Temple  choirs — Asaph, 
Heman,  Ethan. 

After  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  when  the  Church 
took  the  place  of  the  State,  and  the  scribes  succeeded  to  the 
empty  seat  of  the  prophets,  all  this  began  to  change.  A  great 
part  of  the  spiritual  and  intellectual  energy  of  the  Jews  was 
turned  into  purely  literary  channels;  and  ultimately,  after 
the   decline  of  the  Hasmonean  power,  the   men   of  books 


LECT.  IV  OFTEN   ANONYMOUS  9  5 

became  the  acknowledged  leaders  of  national  life,  and  letters 
the  recognised  means  of  public  distinction.  To  the  doctors 
of  the  Law,  who  knew  no  other  greatness  than  that  of  learn- 
ing, all  the  heroes  of  ancient  Israel,  even  the  rude  warrior 
Joab,  appeared  in  the  character  of  book-men  and  students. 
To  this  point  of  view  the  anonymity  of  the  old  literature  was 
a  great  stumbling-block.  It  seemed  obvious  to  the  Eabbins 
that  the  leaders  of  the  ancient  nation  must  have  been,  above 
all  things,  the  authors  of  the  national  literature,  and  they 
proceeded  with  much  confidence  to  assign  the  composition  of 
the  nameless  books  to  ]\Ioses,  Joshua,  Samuel,  and  so  forth. 
Even  Adam,  IMelchizedek,  and  Abraham  w^ere  not  excluded 
from  literary  honours,  each  of  them  being  credited  with  the 
authorship  of  a  psalm. ^ 

In  the  times  of  the  Talmud,  when  these  strange  conjec- 
tures took  final  shape,  and  were  admitted  into  the  body  of 
authoritative  Jewish  tradition,  the  text  of  the  Bible  was 
already  rigidly  fixed,  so  that  no  attempt  could  be  made  to 
embody  them  in  titles  prefixed  to  the  several  books.  But  the 
tendency  that  culminates  in  the  Talmudic  legends  is  much 
older  than  the  Talmud  itself,  and  no  one,  I  imagine,  will  be 
prepared  to  affirm  on  general  grounds  that  the  Jews  of  the 
last  pre-Christian  centuries  either  lacked  curiosity  as  to  the 
authorship  of  their  sacred  books,  or  were  prepared  to  restrain 
their  curiosity  within  the  limits  prescribed  by  the  rules  of 
evidence.  But  in  these  ages,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the 
Biblical  text  was  still  in  a  more  or  less  fluid  state,  and  we 
dare  not  say  a  priori  that  the  introduction  of  a  title  based  on 
conjecture  would  have  seemed  to  exceed  the  licence  allowed 
to  a  copyist.  We  know  that  such  conjectural  titles  found 
a  place  in  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  wdiere,  for 
example,  many  copies  prefix  the  name  of  Paul  to  the  Epistle 

1  See   the   famous   passage,   Bdhd   Bdthra,  14,    h,    quoted  at   length  by- 
Driver,  Introduction,  p.  xxxii.  sj. 


96  TITLES    OF 


to  the  Hebrews,  thoiiGjh  it  is  certain  that  the  oldest  manu- 
scripts  left  it  anonymous.  Wli ether  something  of  the  same 
sort  took  place  in  copies  of  the  Old  Testament  is  a  question 
not  to  be  answered  on  general  grounds,  but  only  on  the 
evidence  of  facts;  and  the  Septuagint  supplies  us  with 
facts  that  are  to  the  point. 

The  part  of  the  Old  Testament  in  which  the  system  of 
titles  has  been  carried  out  most  fully  is  the  Book  of  Psalms. 
The  titles  to  the  Psalms  are  to  a  large  extent  directions  for 
their  liturgical  performance  in  the  service  of  the  Temple 
music  ;  but  they  also  contain  the  names  of  men — David, 
the  Sons  of  Korah,  and  so  forth.  Are  we  to  suppose  that 
there  is  no  title  of  a  psalm  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  which 
does  not  go  back  to  the  author  of  the  psalm,  or  at  least 
to  a  time  when  his  name  was  known  from  contemporary 
evidence  ?  Let  us  consult  the  Septuagint,  and  what  do 
we  find  ?  We  find,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Septuagint 
has  the  words  "of"  or  "to  David"  in  a  number  of  psalms 
where  the  Hebrew  has  no  author's  name  (Psahns  xxxiii. 
xliii.  Ixvii.  Ixxi.  xci.  xciii.  to  xcix.  civ.^  cxxxvii.)  ;  and, 
conversely,  it  omits  the  name  of  David  from  four,  and  the 
name  of  Solomon  from  one,  of  the  Psalms  of  Degrees  (Psalms 
cxxii.  cxxiv.  cxxxi.  cxxxiii.  cxxvii.).^  Now  the  large  number 
of  cases  in  which  the  Septuagint  inserts  the  name  of  David 
is  evidence  of  a  tendency  to  ascribe  to  him  an  ever-increasing 

^  In  Ps.  civ.,  according  to  the  Syro-Hexaplar,  Aqnila  lias  "  of  David,"  so 
that  these  words  may  have  stood  in  his  Hebrew  copy. 

-  Strack,  in  a  review  of  the  first  edition  of  these  Lectures  {Theol.  Literatur- 
hlatt,  1882,  No.  41),  takes  the  objection  that  the  Sinaitic  MS.  has  the  name 
of  David  in  the  four  Psalms  of  Degrees  cited  by  me,  and  that  the  evidence  of 
the  Vatican  MS.  is  lacking  owing  to  a  lacuna.  But  no  one  who  knows  the 
elements  of  textual  criticism  will  set  the  evidence  of  the  Sinaitic  Codex  against 
the  overwhelming  mass  of  MSS,  on  the  other  side,  even  though  it  is  reinforced 
in  the  case  of  two  of  the  four  psalms  by  the  Memphitic  version.  The  materials 
given  in  Field's  Hexapla  show  clearly  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  Hexaplar 
additions,  i.e.  with  words  added  by  Origen  from  the  Hebrew,  and  originally 
marked  as  additions  by  an  asterisk,  which  Sin.  has  dropped. 


THE   PSALMS  97 


number  of  psalms.  That  tendency,  we  know,  went  on,  till  at 
length  it  became  a  common  opinion  that  he  was  the  author 
of  the  whole  Psalter.  "VVe  cannot  therefore  suppose  that  the 
Greek  version,  or  the  Hebrew  MSS.  on  which  it  rested,  would 
omit  the  name  of  David  in  any  case  where  it  had  once  stood ; 
and  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  at  least  in  four  cases  our 
Hebrew  Bibles  have  the  name  of  David  where  it  has  no  right 
to  be,  and  that  the  insertion  was  made  by  a  copyist  after  the 
time  when  the  text  of  the  Septuagint  branched  off.  But  if 
this  be  so,  it  is  impossible  to  maintain  on  principle  that  the 
titles  of  the  Psalms  are  throughout  authoritative  :  and  if 
there  is  no  principle  involved,  it  is  not  only  legitimate,  but 
an  absolute  duty,  to  test  every  title  by  comparing  it  with  the 
internal  evidence  supplied  by  the  poem  itself.  I  shall  have 
occasion  to  return  to  this  subject  in  Lecture  VII. 

Similar  variations,  leading  to  similar  conclusions,  are 
found  in  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  even  in 
the  prophetical  books.  In  Jer.  xxvii.  1  the  Hebrew  has 
a  title  which  the  Septuagint  omits,  and  which  every  one 
can  see  to  be  a  mere  accidental  repetition  of  the  title  of 
chap.  xxvi.  For  the  prophecy  which  the  title  ascribes  to 
the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  is  addressed  in 
the  most  explicit  way  to  Zedekiah,  king  of  Judah  (verses 
3,  12).  So  again  the  Septuagint  omits  the  name  of  Jeremiah 
in  the  title  to  the  prophecy  against  Babylon  (chaps.  1.  li.), 
which,  for  other  reasons,  modern  critics  generally  ascribe 
to  a  later  prophet.  Here,  it  is  true,  chap.  li.  59-64  may  seem 
to  be  a  subscription  establishing  the  traditional  authorship. 
But  a  note  at  the  end  of  the  chapter  in  the  Hebrew  expressly 
says  that  the  words  of  Jeremiah  end  with  "they  shall  be 
weary," — the  close  of  verse  58.  This  note  is  the  real  subscrip- 
tion to  the  prophecy,  and  it  is  also  omitted  by  the  Septuagint.^ 

Mt  is  argued  by  those  who  ascribe  chaps.  1.  li.  to  Jeremiah,  that  the 
expression  "all  these  words"  iu  chap.  li.  60  necessarily  refers  to  the  context 

7 


98  TITLES    IN    THE 


As  a  detailed  survey  of  the  prophetical  writings  does  not 
fall  within  the  plan  of  these  Lectures  I  will  take  the  oppor- 
tunity, before  passing  from  the  subject,  to  make  some  further 
remarks  on  the  titles  of  the  prophetic  books,  going  beyond 
the  indications  to  be  derived  from  the  Septuagint.  You  are 
aware  that  according  to  the  traditionally  received  opinion 
there  is  not  in  these  books  any  such  thing  as  an  anonymous 
prophecy  :  the  Books  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel  con- 
tain prophecies  by  these  three  men  alone,  and  in  like  manner 
the  Book  of  the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  which  in  Hebrew  is 
reckoned  as  one  book,  contains  prophecies  by  the  Twelve  who 
are  named  in  the  titles  and  by  no  other  hand.  ]\Iodern  critics 
reject  this  opinion,  and  maintain  that  various  prophecies,  such 
as  chaps,  xl.-lxvi.  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  chaps.  1.  li.  of  the 
Book  of  Jeremiah,  and  some  parts  of  Micah  and  Zechariah,  are 
not  the  composition  of  the  prophets  to  whose  works  they  are 
traditionally  reckoned.  It  is  not  argued  that  these  pieces  are 
spurious  works  palmed  off  under  a  false  name.  They  are  ac- 
cepted as  genuine  writings  of  true  prophets,  but  it  is  main- 
tained that  their  style  and  other  characters,  above  all  the 
historical  situation  which  they  presuppose,  show  that  they 
are  not  the  work  of  the  hand  and  age  to  which  current 
tradition  refers  them.  Thus  in  the  case  of  Isaiah  xL-lxvi. 
it  is  pointed  out  that  the  prophet  addresses  his  words  of 
consolation  and  exhortation  to  Israel  in  its  Babylonian 
exile.  This  exile  is  to  him  the  present  situation,  not  an 
event  foreseen  in  the  far  prophetic  future,  and  therefore, 
it  is  argued,  the  prophecy  must  have  been  written  in  the 
days  of  the  Captivity.  It  is  not  disputed  on  any  hand  that 
the  custom  of  the  prophets  is  to  speak  to  the  needs  and 

immediately  preceding.  But  the  order  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies  is  greatly 
disturbed  {infra,  p.  109  sq.).  No  onerwill  argue  that  "  these  words  "  in  chap. 
xlv.  1  refer  to  chap.  xliv. ;  yet  the  argument  is  as  good  in  the  one  case  as  in 
the  other.  Compare  Budde,  *'Ueber  die  Capitel  L.  und  LI.  des  Buches 
Jeremia  "  in  Jalirhh.  f.  D.  Theol.  voh  xxiii.  p.  428  sq.,  p.  529  sq. 


PROPHETIC    BOOKS  99 


actual  situation  of  their  contemporaries.  However  far  their 
visions  reach  into  the  future,  they  take  their  start  from  the 
present.  Had  tliey  failed  to  do  this  their  word  could  not 
have  been  the  direct  message  of  God  to  their  own  con- 
temporaries. Accordingly  it  is  admitted  by  those  who  still 
argue  for  Isaiah  as  the  author  of  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  that  that  great 
prophet  in  his  later  years  must  have  been  supernaturally 
transported  out  of  his  own  historical  surroundings,  and  set, 
as  it  were,  in  vision,  in  the  midst  of  the  community  of  the 
Captivity,  that  he  might  write  a  word  of  prophetic  exhortation, 
not  for  his  own  contemporaries  but  for  the  future  generation 
of  Babylonian  exiles.  To  make  this  theory  plausible  it 
must  further  be  maintained  that  the  prophecy  so  written  re- 
mained a  sealed  book  for  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  ;  for  it  is 
manifest  that  subsequent  prophets,  like  Jeremiah,  w^ho  were 
very  familiar  with  other  parts  of  Isaiah's  teaching,  had  no 
acquaintance  with  this  wonderful  revelation.  Surely  there 
is  a  difficulty  here  wdiich  is  not  the  creation  of  scepticism, 
but  must  be  felt  by  every  thoughtful  reader.  There  is  a 
method  in  Eevelation  as  much  as  in  N"ature,  and  the  first  law 
of  that  method,  which  no  careful  student  of  Scripture  can  fail 
to  grasp,  is  that  God's  Eevelation  of  Himself  is  unfolded 
gradually,  in  constant  contact  w^ith  the  needs  of  religious  life. 
Every  word  of  God  is  spoken  for  all  time,  but  every  word 
none  the  less  was  first  spoken  to  a  present  necessity  of  God's 
people.  The  great  mass  of  the  prophecies  are  obviously  con- 
formed to  this  rule,  and  the  burden  of  proof  lies  wdth  those 
who  ask  us  to  recognise  an  exception  to  it.  In  the  case 
before  us  w^e  are  asked  to  admit  an  exception  of  the  most 
startling  kind,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  chapters  in 
question  are  very  different  in  style  and  language  from  the 
undisputed  writings  of  Isaiah,  and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
for  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  the  teaching  of  the  prophets 
who  continued  Isaiah's  work  remained  uninfluenced  by  what, 


100  THE    BOOK 


on  the  traditional  view,  was  the  crownino-  achievement  of 
Isaiah's  ministry.  The  defenders  of  tradition  make  no 
serious  attempt  to  remove  these  difficulties.^  They  seek 
to  cut  the  discussion  short  by  two  arguments — (1)  that  the 
synagogue  and  the  Church  agree  in  ascribing  the  chapters 
to  Isaiah ;  and  (2)  that  if  they  are  not  by  Isaiah  it  is 
impossible  to  explain  how  they  could  have  been  admitted 
into  his  book.     (See  Keil,  Introductioii,  Eng.  trans.,  i.  331.) 

Now  as  regards  the  testimony  of  the  synagogue  and  the 
Church  it  is  true  that  Ecclus.  xlviii.  24  (27)  already  cites 
Isa.  xL  1  as  the  words  of  Isaiah,  and  from  this  it  may  be  taken 
as  probable  that  five  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Isaiah, 
when  the  son  of  Sirach  wrote  {circa  200  B.C.),  the  whole  Book 
of  Isaiah  was  assumed  to  be  by  a  single  hand.  But  on  what 
authority  was  this  assumed  ?  The  son  of  Sirach  had  no  other 
written  sources  for  the  literary  history  of  the  Bible  than  those 
we  still  possess,  and  it  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  opinion  of 
his  time  simply  rested  on  the  fact  that  the  disputed  prophecies 
already  stood  in  the  same  book  with  the  unquestioned  writ- 
ings of  Isaiah,  and  were  held  to  be  covered  by  the  general  title 
in  Isa.  i.  1.  Thus  the  two  arguments  reduce  themselves  to 
one,  the  supposed  incredibility  that  a  writing  not  by  Isaiah 
could  have  been  included  in  Isaiah's  book.  Let  us  understand 
what  this  argument  means.  In  ancient  times  a  book  meant  a 
separate  roll  or  volume,  and  the  Jewish  division  of  the  pro- 
phetic writings  into  four  books  means  that  they  were  usually 
comprised  in  four  volumes,  of  which  the  Book  of  Isaiah  was 
one,  as  we  see  from  Luke  iv.  17.     But  these  volumes  were 

^  Some  trifling  and  totally  inadequate  attempts  have  been  made  to  mini- 
mise the  difi"erences  of  style,  and  a  few  passages  have  been  pointed  out  in 
which  there  are  points  of  contact,  rather  in  expression  than  in  thought, 
between  Isa.  xl.  sqq.  and  prophets  who  lived  between  Isaiah  and  the  Exile. 
ISTone  of  these  coincidences  has  any  force  as  proving  the  priority  of  the  great 
anonymous  prophecy,  and  none  of  these  petty  arguments  touches  the  broad 
and  decisive  fact  that  Jeremiah  and  his  compeers  are  totally  uninfluenced  by 
the  leading  ideas  of  Isa.  xl.  -Ixvi. 


LECT.  IV  OF   ISAIAH  101 

not  constructed  on  the  principle  that  each  writer  should  have 
a  separate  roll  for  himself,  for  the  twelve  minor  prophets 
formed  a  siugle  book.  Why  then  should  it  be  inconceivable 
that  a  separate  prophecy,  too  short  to  make  a  volume  by  itself, 
should  have  been  placed  at  the  end  of  Isaiah's  volume,  which, 
without  this  appendix,  would  have  been  very  much  shorter 
than  the  other  three  prophetic  books  ?  You  may  object  that 
if  this  had  been  done  the  collector  would  at  least  have  been 
careful  to  mark  off  the  true  Isaiah  from  the  addition.  But 
this  assumption  is  not  warranted.  It  may  be  taken  as 
certain  that  a  prophecy  composed  in  the  Exile,  when  the 
Jews  were  scattered  and  had  no  public  life,  was  never 
preached,  but  circulated  from  the  first  in  writing,  passing 
privately  from  hand  to  hand.  Under  these  circumstances 
the  author  was  not  likely  to  put  his  name  to  his  book,  and 
the  collector  of  the  present  Book  of  Isaiah,  who  received  it 
without  a  title,  would  transmit  it  in  the  same  way.  It  is  true 
that  by  so  doing  he  left  it  possible  for  readers  to  draw  a  false 
inference  as  to  the  authorship ;  but  every  one  who  has  handled 
Eastern  manuscripts  knows  that  scribes  constantly  copy  out 
several  works  into  one  volume  without  taking  the  precautions 
necessary  to  prevent  an  anonymous  piece  from  being  ascribed 
to  the  author  of  the  work  to  which  it  is  attached.  To  prevent 
mistakes  of  this  sort  it  is  necessary  that  every  piece  which 
bears  an  author's  name  should  be  furnished  not  only  with 
a  title  but  with  a  subscription  marking  the  point  at  which 
it  ends.  But  in  the  prophetic  books  subscriptions  are  the 
exception  not  the  rule  ;  the  only  formal  one,  which  professes 
to  say  where  the  words  of  a  particular  prophet  end,  is  Jer. 
li.  64,  and  this,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  absent  from  tlie 
Septuagint,  and  presumably  formed  no  part  of  the  original 
text.  We  have  no  right,  therefore,  to  expect  a  formal  indica- 
tion of  the  point  at  which  the  actual  words  of  Isaiah  end ; 
but  in  point  of  fact  the  main  part  of  the  book  is  very  clearly 


102  ZECHARIAH    IX. -XIV.  lect.  iv 

separated  from  the  Babylonian  chapters  by  the  historical 
section,  chaps,  xxxvi.-xxxix.  Apart  from  the  psalm  of 
Hezekiah,  these  chapters  are  found  also  with  slight  variations 
in  the  Book  of  Kings,  and  the  nature  of  the  variations  proves 
(as  you  may  see  in  detail  by  consulting  Prof.  Driver's  Intro- 
duction) that  the  text  of  Kings  is  the  original,  and  that  the 
narrative  of  Isaiah  is  extracted  from  that  book.  These 
extracts  form  an  appendix,  which  cannot  have  been  added 
to  the  volume  of  Isaiah's  prophecies  till  the  time  of  the 
Captivity  at  the  earliest,  and  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.  constitutes  a 
second  and  still  later  addition. 

As  another  instance  of  the  futility  of  the  arguments  from 
authority  that  are  used  to  cut  short  critical  discussion  as  to 
the  authorship  of  prophetical  pieces,  I  may  take  the  case  of 
Zechariah  ix.-xiv.  On  what  authority  are  these  declared  to 
form  part  of  the  Book  of  Zechariah  ?  In  the  Hebrew  Bible 
there  is  no  such  book.  There  is  not  even  a  general  title  to 
the  section  of  the  fourth  prophetic  volume  in  which  these 
chapters  stand  ;  for  the  titles  in  Zech.  i.  1,  vii.  1,  refer  only 
to  single  prophecies  of  Zechariah  delivered  at  particular 
dates.  At  chapter  ix.  we  have  an  entirely  separate  prophecy 
with  a  separate  title,  in  which  Zechariah  is  not  named,  a 
different  historical  situation,  and  a  quite  different  style  and 
manner.  Further,  we  must  remember  that  the  volume  of 
Minor  Prophets  is  a  miscellaneous  collection,  not  even 
arranged  on  chronological  principles  (since,  for  example, 
Hosea  precedes  Amos),  but  gathering  up  all  the  remains 
of  prophetic  literature  that  were  not  already  comprised  in 
the  Books  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel.  Under  these 
circumstances  there  is  absolutely  no  inference  to  be  drawn 
from  tlie  fact  that  the  anonymous  prophecies,  Zech.  ix.-xiv., 
stand  immediately  after  others  that  bear  Zechariah's  name. 
The  later  Jews  ascribed  them  to  Zechariah,  but  that  is  no 
evidence  for  us  ;  for  they  did  so  on  exactly  the  same  absurd 


JEREMIAH    XXVJI.  103 


principle  on  which,  in  the  days  of  Origen,  they  ascribed  all 
anonymous  psalms  to  the  author  of  the  nearest  preceding 
psalm  that  bears  a  title.-^ 

1  now  return  to  the  Septuagint,  and  propose  to  call  your 
attention  to  an  example  of  editorial  redaction,  involving  a 
series  of  changes  running  through  the  whole  structure  of  a 
passage.  For  this  purpose  I  select  the  twenty -seventh 
chapter  of  Jeremiah,  the  Hebrew  title  of  which  has  already 
been  shown  to  be  an  editorial  insertion.  We  are  now  to  see 
that  the  hand  of  an  editor  has  been  at  w^ork  all  through  the 
chapter.  Let  me  say  at  the  outset  that  the  example  is  a  some- 
w4iat  unusual  one.  There  are  not  many  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament  where  the  variations  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew 
are  so  extensive  as  in  Jeremiah ;  but  it  is  necessary  to  choose 
a  well-marked  case  in  order  to  convey  a  distinct  conception 
of  the  limits  of  editorial  interference.  To  facilitate  com- 
parison, I  print  a  translation  of. the  Hebrew  text,  putting 
everything  in  italics  which  is  omitted  by  the  Septuagint. 
The  Greek  has  some  other  slight  variations,  which  are 
not  of  consequence  for  our  present  purpose.  The  essential 
difference  between  the  two  texts  is  that  the  Hebrew,  with- 
out omitting  anything  that  is  in  the  Greek,  has  a  number  of 
additional  clauses  and  sentences. 

In  the  reign  of  King  Zedekiah  a  congress  of  ambassadors 
from  the  neighbouring  nations  was  held  at  Jerusalem,  to 
concert  a  rising  against  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  prophets  and 
diviners  encouraged  this  scheme  ;  but  Jeremiah  was  com- 
manded by  the  Lord  to  protest  against  it,  and  declare  that 
the  empire  of  Nebuchadnezzar  had  been  conferred  on  him  by 

1  See  for  the  rule  as  to  the  anonymous  psalms,  Origen,  ii.  514  s^-..  Rue; 
Jerome,  Ep.  cxl.  ad  Cypr.  That  the  same  principle  was  applied  to  the 
Psalter  and  the  Book  of  the  Minor  Prophets  is  not  a  mere  conjecture,  but 
appears  from  Jerome's  Praef.  in  XII.  Proph.  and  the  Preface  to  his  Commentary 
on  Malachi.  In  the  case  of  the  prophets,  the  princii)le  was  applied  to  settle 
the  chronology  ;  where  the  title  gives  no  date  the  prophecy  was  delivered  in 
the  reigns  of  the  kings  mentioned  in  the  next  preceding  dated  title. 


104  TEXT    OF 


Jehovah's  decree,  and  that  it  was  vain  to  rebel     The  pro- 
phetic message  delivered  in  the  name  of  the  God  of  Israel 

ran  thus  : — 

Jer.  xxvii.  5. — I  have  made  the  earth,  the  man  and  the  least  which 
are  upon  the  face  of  the  earth,  by  my  great  power  and  outstretched  arm, 
and  give  it  to  whom  I  please.  (6.)  And  noio  I  have  given  all  these 
lands  [LXX.  the  earth]  into  the  hand  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  .  .  .  (7.) 
And  all  nations  shall  serve  him  and  his  son  and  his  son's  son,  till  the  time 
of  his  land  come  also,  and  mighty  nations  and  great  kings  make  him  their 
servant.  (8.)  And  the  nation  and  kingdom  which  will  not  serve  him, 
Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon,  and  put  their  neck  under  the  yoke  of 
the  king  of  Babylon,  will  I  punish,  saith  the  Lord,  with  the  sword, 
and  with  famine,  and  with  pestilence,  till  I  have  consumed  them  by  his 
hand.  (9.)  Therefore  hearken  ye  not  to  your  prophets,  .  .  .  which 
say  ye  shall  not  serve  the  king  of  Babylon.  (10.)  For  they  prophesy 
lies  to  you  to  remove  you  from  your  land,  and  that  I  should  drive  you 
out  and  ye  should  perish.   .  .  . 

(12.)  And  to  Zedekiah,  king  of  Judah,  I  spake  with  all  these 
words,  saying.  Bring  your  neck  under  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon, 
and  serve  him  and  his  people,  and  live.  (13.)  Why  will  ye  die,  thou 
and  thy  people,  by  the  sword,  by  famine,  and  by  pestilence,  as  the  Lord 
hath  spoken  against  the  nation  that  will  not  serve  the  king  of  Babylon  ? 
(14.)  Therefore  hearken  not  unto  the  words  of  the  prophets  ivho  speak  unto 
you,  saying.  Serve  not  the  king  of  Babylon ;  for  they  [emphatic]  prophesy 
lies  unto  you.  (15.)  For  I  have  not  sent  them,  saith  the  Lord,  and 
they  prophesy  lies  in  my  name.   .   .  . 

(16.)  And  to  the  priests  and  to  all  this  people  [LXX.  to  all  the 
people  and  the  priests]  I  spake  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Hearken 
not  to  the  words  of  your  prophets  who  prophesy  to  you,  saying,  Behold 
the  vessels  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  shall  be  brought  back  from 
Babylon  now  quickly,  for  they  prophesy  a  lie  unto  you.  (IV.)  Hearken 
not  unto  them  [LXX.  I  have  not  sent  them],  serve  the  king  of  Babylon, 
and  live ;  icherefore  should  this  city  be  laid  ivaste  ?  (18.)  But  if  they  are 
prophets,  and  if  the  word  of  the  Lord  is  with  them,  let  them  intercede 
with  the  Lord  of  Hosts  [LXX.  with  me],  that  the  vessels  which  are  left 
in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  the  house  of  the  king  of  Judah,  and  in 
Jerusalem,  come  not  to  Babylon.  (19.)  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  of 
Hosts  concerning  the  pillars  and  the  sea  and  the  bases,  and  the  rest  of  the 
vessels  left  in  this  city,  (20)  Which  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  of  Babylon 
took  not  when  he  carried  Jeconiah  son  of  Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah 
captive  from  Jerusalem  to  Babylon,  and  all  the  nobles  of  Judah  and 
Jerusalem;  (21.)  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  the  God  of  Israel,  con- 
cerning the  vessels  left  in  the  house  of  God,  and  in  the  house  of  the  king  of 
Judah  and  Jerusalem;  (22.)  They  shall  be  taken  to  Babylon,  and 
there  shall  they  be  unto  the  day  that  I  visit  them,  saith  the  Lord  ;  then 
will  I  bring  them  up  and  restore  tliem  to  this  place. 


JEREMIAH    XXVII.  105 


Througliout  these  verses  the  general  effect  of  the  omissions 
of  the  Septuagint  is  to  make  the  style  simpler,  more  natural, 
and  more  forcible.  At  verses  8, 10, 12,  13,  17,  the  additional 
matter  of  the  Massoretic  text  is  mere  expansion  of  ideas  fully 
expressed  in  the  shorter  recension  ;  and  at  verse  14  the  omis- 
sions of  the  Septuagint  give  the  proper  oratorical  value  to 
the  emphatic  "  they  "  of  the  original,  which  the  prophet,  in 
genuine  Hebrew  style,  must  have  spoken  with  a  gesture 
pointing  to  the  false  prophets  who  stood  before  the  king.  It 
is  not  to  be  thought  that  a  later  copyist  added  nerve  and 
force  to  the  prophecy  by  pruning  the  prolixities  of  the 
original  text.  Jeremiah  is  no  mean  orator  and  author,  and 
the  prolixities  are  much  more  in  the  wearisome  style  of  the 
later  Jewish  literature. 

■  But  in  some  parts  the  two  recensions  differ  in  meaning  as 
well  as  lansjuasfe.  At  verse  7  the  Hebrew  text  inserts  in  the 
midst  of  Jeremiah's  exhortation  to  submission  a  prophecy 
that  the  Babylonians  shall  be  punished  in  the  third  genera- 
tion. No  doubt  Jeremiah  does  elsewhere  predict  the  fall  of 
Babylon  and  the  restoration  of  Israel.  He  had  done  so  at  an 
earlier  date  (xxv.  11-13).  But  is  it  natural  that  he  should 
turn  aside  to  introduce  such  a  prediction  here,  in  the  very 
midst  of  a  solemn  admonition  on  which  it  has  no  direct 
bearing  ?  And  is  this  a  thing  which  a  copyist  would  be 
tempted  to  omit  ?  Much  rather  was  it  natural  for  a  later 
scribe  to  introduce  it.  Again,  at  verse  16,  the  Hebrew  text 
modifies  the  prediction  of  the  restoration  of  the  sacred  vessels 
made  by  the  false  prophets,  by  the  insertion  of  the  words 
"now  quickly."  There  was  no  motive  for  the  omission  of 
these  words,  if  they  are  original.  But  a  later  scribe,  reflect- 
ing on  the  fact  that  the  sacred  vessels  were  restored  by  Cyrus, 
might  well  insert  the  qualification  "  now  quickly  "  to  deprive 
the  false  prophets  of  any  claim  to  have  spoken  truly  after 
all.     In  reality  it  does  not  need  these  words  to  prove  them 


106  TEXT    OF  LECT.  IV 

liars ;  for  their  prediction,  taken  in  the  context,  plainly 
meant  that  the  alliance  sliould  defeat  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
recover  the  spoil.  But  the  words  stand  or  fall  with  the 
prediction  put  into  Jeremiah's  mouth,  in  verse  22,  that  the 
vessels  of  the  temple  and  the  palace,  including  the  brazen 
pillars,  sea,  and  bases,  should  be  taken  indeed  to  Babylon, 
but  be  brought  back  again  in  the  day  of  visitation.  This  is 
plainly  the  spurious  insertion  of  a  thoughtless  copyist,  who 
had  his  eye  on  chapter  lii.  17.  For  it  is  true  that  the  pillars, 
the  sea,  and  the  bases  were  carried  to  Babylon,  but  they 
were  not  and  could  not  have  been  brought  back.  These 
huge  masses  could  not  have  been  transported  entire  across 
the  mountains  and  deserts  that  separated  Judsea  from  Babylon. 
And  so  we  are  expressly  told  in  chapter  lii.  that  they  were 
broken  up  and  carried  off  as  old  brass,  fit  only  for  the  melting- 
pot.  Jeremiah  and  his  hearers  knew  well  that  they  could 
not  reach  Babylon  in  any  other  form,  and  in  his  mouth  the 
prediction  which  we  read  in  the  Hebrew  text  would  have 
been  not  only  false,  but  palpably  absurd.  That  such  a  pre- 
diction now  stands  in  the  text  only  proves  what  the  thought- 
lessness of  copyists  was  capable  of,  and  makes  the  reading  of 
the  Septuagint  absolutely  certain. 

We  conclude,  then,  from  a  plain  argument  of  physical 
impossibility,  that  Jeremiah  did  not  predict  the  restoration 
of  the  spoils  of  the  Temple.  And  by  this  result  we  remove 
a  serious  inconsistency  from  his  religious  teaching.  For  the 
restoration  to  which  Jeremiah  constantly  looks  is  not  the 
re-establishment  of  the  old  ritual,  but  the  bringing  in  of  a 
spiritual  covenant  when  God's  law  shall  be  written  on  the 
hearts  of  the  people  (chap.  xxxi.).  !N'o  prophet  thinks  more 
lightly  of  the  service  of  the  Temple  (chap.  vii.).  He  denies 
that  God  gave  a  law  of  sacrifice  to  the  people  when  they  left 
Egypt.  They  may  eat  their  burnt-offerings  as  well  as  the 
other  sacrifices,  and  God  will  not  condemn  them  (vii.  21,  22). 


LECT.  IV  JEREMIAH    XXV 11.  107 

Even  the  ark  of  the  covenant  is  in  his  eyes  an  obsolete 
symbol,  which  in  the  day  of  Israel's  conversion  shall  not  be 
missed  and  not  be  remade  (iii.  16,  E.  V.,  marg.).  To  the  false 
prophets  and  the  people  who  followed  them,  the  ark,  the 
temple,  the  holy  vessels,  were  all  in  all.  To  Jeremiah  they 
were  less  than  nothing,  and  their  restoration  was  no  part  of  his 
hope  of  salvation/ 

^  There  is  one  passage  in  Jeremiah,  as  we  read  it,  which  appears  incon- 
sistent with  the  view  I  have  ventured  to  take  of  the  prophet's  attitude  to  the 
temporary  elements  of  the  Old  Testament  ritual.  In  Jer.  xxxiii.  14-26  it  is 
predicted  that  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  its  sacrifices  shall  be  perpetual  as 
the  succession  of  day  and  night.  This  passage  is  also  wanting  in  the  Septua- 
gint.  No  reason  can  be  suggested  for  its  omission  ;  for  we  know  from  Philo 
that  even  those  Jews  of  Alexandria  who  sat  most  loosely  to  the  ceremonial 
law  regarded  the  Temple  and  its  service  as  an  essential  element  in  religion 
{De  Migr.  Ahra.  cap.  xvi.).  If  taken  literally,  the  eternity  of  Levitical 
sacrifices,  as  expressed  in  xxxiii.  18,  seems  quite  inconsistent  with  all  else  in 
Jeremiah's  prophecies.  Taken  typically,  the  verse  only  fits  the  sacrifice  of 
the  mass,  to  which  Roman  Catholic  expositors  refer  it ;  for  the  sacrifices  are 
to  be  offered  continually  in  all  time. 


LECTUEE  V 

THE  SEPTUAGINT  {continued) — the  composition  OF 
BIBLICAL  BOOKS 

In  tlie  last  Lecture  we  began  to  examine  those  features  of  the 
Septuagint  which  bear  witness  to  the  kind  of  labour  that  was 
spent  on  the  text  by  ancient  editors.  We  have  seen  how 
redactors  or  copyists  sometimes  added  titles  to  anonymous 
pieces,  and  how  by  a  series  of  small  editorial  changes,  running 
from  verse  to  verse  through  a  chapter,  the  form  and  even  tlie 
meaning  of  an  important  passage  were  sometimes  consider- 
ably modified. 

We  now  come  to  another  part  of  the  subject,  in  which  I 
propose  to  use  the  variations  between  the  Greek  and  Hebrew 
text  to  throw  light  on  the  structure  of  the  books  of  the  Bible. 
The  main  point  which  I  desire  to  enforce  in  this  Lecture  is 
that  certain  books  which  we  have  been  wont  to  look  upon  as 
continuous  unities  are  really  composite  in  character.  Some 
evidence  to  this  effect,  especially  as  regards  the  prophetic 
books,  has  already  come  before  us  when  we  looked  at  the 
question  of  titles.  To-day  we  have  to  deal  with  another 
branch  of  evidence,  drawn  from  the  transpositions  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint, the  entire  omission  of  certain  sections,  and  so  forth. 
I  hope  to  be  able  to  handle  these  evidences  in  a  way  that 
will  not  only  confirm  the  results  at  which  we  have  already 
arrived,  but  will  give  us  valuable  insight  into  deeper  critical 
questions,  especially  as  regards  the  historical  books. 


LECT.  V  TRANSPOSITIONS    OF    LXX.  109 

I  begin  with  the  trctJisjjositions  of  the  Septiiagiiit  text,  and 
choose  as  my  first  example  the  chapters  comprising  Jeremiah's 
prophecies  against  the  heathen  nations.  In  our  Bibles,  and 
in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  these  prophecies  occupy  chapters  xlvi. 
to  li.  In  the  Septuagint  they  follow  the  13th  verse  of  the 
twenty-fifth  chapter,  and  appear  in  a  different  order.  In  the 
Hebrew  the  sequence  is  Egypt,  Philistines,  Moab,  Amnion, 
Edom,  Damascus,  Kedar  and  Hazor,  Elam,  Babylon.  The 
Septuagint  sequence  is  Elam,  Egypt,  Babylon,  Philistines, 
Edom,  Ammon,  Kedar  and  Hazor,  Damascus,  Moab.  Can  we 
then  assume  that  in  this  case  the  translator  of  the  Septuagint 
version,  having  before  him  a  fixed  and  certain  order  of  all 
Jeremiah's  oracles,  took  the  liberty  to  shift  the  prophecies 
against  the  nations  through  one  another,  and  to  put  them  in 
an  entirely  different  part  of  the  book  ?  Erom  what  we  have 
seen  already  as  to  the  general  way  in  which  these  translators 
acted,  such  an  assumption  is  highly  improbable.  Eather  we 
are  to  suppose  that  in  their  copy  these  prophecies  already 
occupied  a  different  place  from  what  they  hold  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible. 

What  does  that  lead  us  to  conclude  ?  Variations  in  the 
order  of  the  individual  pieces  may  very  well  happen  in 
collected  editions  of  writings  originally  published  separately, 
but  not  in  a  single  book  of  one  author.  And  that  is  just 
what  the  facts  lead  us  otherwise  to  suppose,  for  we  know 
that  Jeremiah's  prophecies  were  not  all  written  down  at  one 
time,  or  in  the  order  in  which  they  now  stand.  We  learn 
from  chap,  xxxvi.  that  a  record  of  the  first  twenty-three  years 
of  his  prophetic  ministry  was  dictated  by  the  prophet  to 
Baruch  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim.  But  this  book  does 
not  correspond  with  the  first  part  of  the  present  Book  of 
Jeremiah,  in  which  prophecies  later  than  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim 
— such  as  chap.  xxiv. — precede  others  which  must  have  stood 
in  the  original  collection   (chap.  xxvi.).     Jeremiah's  book. 


110  VARIATIONS    OF 


then,  as  we  have  it,  is  not  a  continuous  record  of  his  pro- 
phecies, which  he  himself  kept  constantly  posted  up  to  date, 
but  a  compilation  made  up  from  several  prophetic  writings 
originally  published  separately.  In  this  compilation  the 
natural  order  is  not  always  observed,  for  it  is  plain  that 
chap,  xlv.,  containing  a  brief  prophecy  addressed  to  Baruch, 
"wlien  he  wrote  these  words  in  a  book  at  the  mouth  of 
Jeremiah  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim "  (ver.  1),  must 
originally  have  stood  at  the  close  of  the  collection  spoken  of 
in  chap,  xxxvi.  It  is  easy,  then,  to  understand  that,  when 
several  distinct  books  of  Jeremiah's  words  and  deeds  were 
brought  together  into  one  volume,  there  might  be  variations 
of  order  in  different  copies  of  the  collection,  just  as  modern 
editions  of  the  collected  works  of  one  author  frequently  differ 
in  arrangement. 

It  is  very  doubtful  whether  this  group  of  prophecies 
appears  just  as  they  w^ere  first  published,  either  in  the  Septua- 
gint  or  in  the  Hebrew.  The  order  of  the  individual  pro- 
phecies seems  to  be  more  suitable  in  the  Hebrew  and  English 
texts ;  for  chap.  xxv.  15  sq.  contains  a  sort  of  brief  summary 
or  general  conspectus  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies  against  the 
nations,  and  here  the  order  agrees  very  closely  with  that  in 
our  present  Hebrew  text  as  against  the  Septuagint ;  but  then, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  summary  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies 
against  the  nations  is  found  in  the  twenty -fifth  chapter, 
whereas  in  our  present  edition  the  details  under  this  general 
sketch  begin  at  chap.  xlvi.  Much  more  natural  in  this 
respect  is  the  arrangement  of  the  Septuagint,  placing  all  the 
details  in  immediate  juxtaposition  with  the  general  summary ; 
so  that  here  we  seem  to  have  a  case  in  which  neither  edition 
of  Jeremiah's  prophecies  is  thoroughly  satisfactory  and  in 
good  order.  But  the  general  conclusion  is  that  the  trans- 
positions give  us  a  key  to  the  way  in  which  the  book  came 
together,  showing  that  it  was  not  aU  written  and  published 


ARRANGEMENT  111 


ill  continuous  unity  by  Jeremiah  liiniself,  but  has  tlie 
character  of  a  collected  edition  of  several  writings  originally 
distinct.  AVe  observe,  also,  that  the  compilers  did  not 
execute  their  work  with  perfect  skill  and  judgment ;  and  so  it 
would  plainly  be  unreasonable  to  call  every  critic  a  rationalist 
who  ventures  to  judge,  on  internal  or  other  evidence,  that 
the  collection  may  possibly  contain  some  chapters,  such  as  1. 
and  li.,  which  are  not  from  the  hand  of  Jeremiah  at  all. 

Another  example  of  the  important  inferences  that  may  be 
drawn  from  the  transpositions  of  the  Septuagint  occurs  in 
the  Book  of  Proverbs.  I  presume  that  many  of  us  have  been 
accustomed  to  think  of  the  Proverbs  as  a  single  composition, 
written  from  first  to  last  by  Solomon.  But  here  again  we 
hnd  such  transpositions  as  indicate  that  the  book  is  not  so 
much  one  continuous  writinc^  as  a  collected  edition  of  various 
proverbial  books  and  tracts.  For  example,  the  first  fourteen 
verses  of  Proverbs  xxx.,  containing  the  words  of  Agur,  are 
placed  in  the  Septuagint  collection  after  the  2 2d  verse  of 
chap.  xxiv.  Then  immediately  upon  that  follows  chap.  xxiv. 
23-3-1,  a  little  section  which  in  the  Hebrew  has  a  separate 
title,  —  "These  also  are  [words]  of  the  wise."  After  that 
comes  chap.  xxx.  15-xxxi.  9.  Then  comes  the  collection  of 
"proverbs  of  Solomon"  copied  out  by  the  men  of  King 
Hezekiah  (xxv.-xxix.) ;  and  the  book  closes  with  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  virtuous  woman  (xxxi.  10-31).  It  is  natural  to 
explain  the  fact  that  these  several  small  collections  of  pro- 
verbs are  grouped  in  such  different  order  in  the  Septuagint 
and  in  the  Hebrew  respectively  by  the  hypothesis  that  they 
originally  existed  as  separate  books  ;  for  in  that  case,  when 
they  came  to  be  collected  into  one  volume,  differences  of 
order  might  readily  arise,  which  could  hardly  have  happened 
if  the  whole  had  been  the  original  composition  of  Solomon 
alone.  And  indeed  the  existence  of  such  separate  collections 
is  more  than  an  hypothesis,  as  the  sub- titles  of  the  book 


112  COMPOSITION    OF 


show.  For  after  tlie  general  title,  cliap.  i.  1-6,  and  a  long 
section,  not  proverbial  in  form,  containing  poetical  admoni- 
tions in  praise  of  wisdom,  morality,  and  religion  (chap.  i.  7- 
ix.  18),  we  come  on  a  collection  of  proverbs  or  aphorisms 
extending  from  chap.  x.  1  to  chap.  xxii.  16,  and  headed  (in 
the  Hebrew)  "  Proverbs  of  Solomon."  This  again  is  followed 
by  a  collection  of  *•'  Words  of  the  wise "  (chap.  xxii.  17- 
xxiv.  22),  with  a  preface  of  its  own  (chap.  xxii.  17-21).  Then 
comes  the  second  collection  of  words  of  the  wise  already 
referred  to,  and  then  again  the  second  collection  of  Proverbs 
of  Solomon,  copied  out  by  the  "Men  of  Hezekiah."  The  men 
of  Hezekiah's  time,  we  see,  had  written  materials  before  them. 
And  the  corpus  of  proverbs  which  they  formed  from  these 
must  once  have  existed  side  by  side  with  the  great  collection 
of  Proverbs  of  Solomon  in  chaps,  x.  sqq.,  and  in  an  independent 
form.  For  the  title  runs :  "  These  also  are  the  proverbs  of 
Solomon,  which  the  men  of  Hezekiah  copied  out."  The  word 
"  also  "  shows  that  this  title  was  written  when  two  separate 
collections  of  Salomonic  Proverbs  were  brought  for  the  first 
time  into  one  volume.  In  like  manner  the  title  in  chap, 
xxiv.  23  :  "  These  also  are  [words]  of  the  wise,"  shows  that 
the  preceding  collection  of  Words  of  the  Wise  once  stood  by 
itself  w^ithout  the  appendix  in  xxiv.  23  sqq.,  from  which,  in 
fact,  it  is  separated  in  the  Septuagint.-^ 

1  That  the  two  Salomonic  collections  were  formed  independently,  and  not 
by  the  same  hand,  appears  most  clearly  from  the  many  cases  in  which  the 
same  proverb  appears  in  both  (see  the  Introduction  to  Delitzsch's  Com- 
mentary,  %  3).  Even  these  parts  of  the  book,  therefore,  were  not  collected  by 
Solomon  himself,  and  the  title  in  chap.  i.  1  is  not  from  his  hand,  but  was 
added  by  some  collector  or  editor.  Hence  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
Solomon  is  the  author  of  chaps,  i.-ix.  any  more  than  of  the  "Words  of  the 
Wise."  The  whole  book  bears  the  name  of  Solomon's  Proverbs,  because  the 
two  great  Salomonic  collections  are  the  leading  element  in  it.  Compare  on 
the  whole  subject  Professor  A.  B.  Davidson's  article  Proverbs  in  the  9th  ed. 
of  the  Encyclopocdia  Britannica  ;  Professor  Cheyne's  Job  and  Solomon  (London, 
1887)  ;  and  Professor  Driver's  Introduction  to  the  0.  T.  (Edinburgh,  1891). 
There  are  close  analogies  between  the  composition  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs 
and  that  of  the  Psalter.     See  Lecture  VIL 


LECT.  V  THE    HISTORICAL    BOOKS  113 

Let  us  now  pass  on  to  the  historical  books.  In  these  the 
questions  of  composition  are  more  complicated,  because  a 
historian  whose  object  is  to  produce  a  continuous  narrative, 
covering  a  long  period,  by  the  aid  of  a  series  of  older  histories 
or  memories,  has  it  open  to  him  to  deal  with  these  materials 
in  various  ways.  He  may  content  himself  with  choosing  one 
good  narrative  for  each  section  of  the  history,  transcribing  or 
abridging  it,  and  adding  little  of  his  own  except  at  the  points 
where  he  passes  from  one  source  to  another.  Or  while  mainly 
following  this  plan,  he  may  from  time  to  time  insert  supple- 
mentary matter  taken  from  other  sources.  Or,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  he  has  before  him  several  histories  of  the  same 
period,  he  may  frame  from  them  a  combined  narrative.  And 
in  this  case  he  may  either  recast  the  whole  story  in  his  own 
words  as  modern  historians  do,  or  he  may  take  short  extracts 
from  his  several  sources  and  piece  them  together  in  a  sort  of 
mosaic,  so  that  the  language,  style,  and  colour  of  each  of  the 
sources  are  still  largely  preserved,  though  the  old  fragments 
are  reset  in  a  new  pattern  and  frame. 

Even  from  the  English  Bible  an  attentive  reader  may 
satisfy  himself  that  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  kings  is  not  a 
homogeneous  literary  composition  like  Macaulay's  History  of 
England.  Many  minor  marks  of  variety  in  language  and 
style  that  are  very  apparent  in  the  Hebrew  necessarily  dis- 
appear in  translation ;  but  the  broader  characteristics  of  style 
and  literary  treatment  survive,  and  these  are  so  different  in 
different  parts  of  the  narrative  as  to  leave  no  doubt  that  the 
compiler  used  a  number  of  sources  and  followed  them  closely, 
retaining  in  great  measure  the  very  words  of  his  predecessors. 
Sometimes  a  single  source  is  followed  without  interruption 
for  a  number  of  chapters,  as  in  the  so-called  "  court  history  "  of 
David,  2  Sam.  ix.-xx.  Eead  this  whole  section  continuously, 
and  while  your  mind  is  still  under  the  impression,  look  back 
to  chap.  viii.     You  pass  in  a  moment  from  a  narrative  full  of 

8 


114  ,  THE    COURT    HISTORY  lect.  v 

life  and  colour  to  a  bare  chronicle  of  public  affairs,  mainly 
foreisjn  wars.  Note  further  that  to  a  certain  extent  both 
narratives  cover  the  same  ground  ;  both  speak  of  David's 
wars  with  the  Syrians.  But  the  particulars  given  are  not 
the  same,  and  the  choice  of  particulars  shows  that  the  autliors 
of  the  two  accounts  had  different  interests.  The  writer  of 
the  longer  history  is  a  student  of  human  nature,  who  has 
taken  David  and  his  court  as  his  field  of  observation,  and 
loves  to  dwell  on  every  incident,  however  trivial,  that  illus- 
trates character.  But  he  has  no  great  interest  in  foreign 
wars  ;  many  of  David's  campaigns  he  passes  over  altogether, 
and  his  mention  of  the  Syrian  campaigns  seems  to  be  due  to 
their  connection  with  the  war  with  Ammon,  which — through 
the  matter  of  Uriah — had  a  very  special  bearing  on  David's 
personal  history.  The  other  account  is  wholly  interested  in 
the  public  glories  of  David's  reign,  and,  brief  as  it  is,  finds 
room  for  particulars  about  rich  booty  and  tributes  of  volun- 
tary homage  to  which  the  court  history  never  alludes. 

Now  pass  on  to  1  Kings  i.  ii.  You  cannot,  I  think,  fail 
to  realise  that  here  we  are  again  in  the  hands  of  the  court 
historian.  The  style,  the  manner,  the  character  of  the  pictur- 
esque details  is  the  same,  and  the  main  thread  of  the  narra- 
tive is  still  that  which  forms  the  thread  of  most  personal 
histories  of  an  Eastern  court — intrigues  about  the  succession. 
Lastly,  note  that  the  two  great  extracts  from  the  court 
history  are  separated  by  2  Sam.  xxi.-xxiv.,  a  series  of  appen- 
dices of  very  various  content,  all  of  which  hang  quite  loose 
from  one  another  and  from  the  continuous  well-knit  narrative 
which  they  interrupt. 

I  have  begun  with  a  very  simple  example  of  the  incor- 
poration of  an  older  document  in  the  Bible  history,  and  one 
that  raises  no  questions  to  alarm  the  most  timid  faith.  I 
now  pass  on  to  a  case  one  degree  more  complex,  in  which, 
however,  we  are  not  wholly  dependent  on  internal  evidence, 


LECT.  V  OF    DAVID  115 

but  get  some  assistance  from  the  Greek  version.  Many  of 
you  have  probably  observed  the  way  in  which  the  history  of 
the  sovereigns  of  Judah  and  Israel  is  arranged  in  the  Book 
of  Kings.  Here  the  narrative  is  concerned  with  the  affairs  of 
two  monarchies,  and  has  to  pass  backwards  and  forwards 
from  the  one  to  the  other.  The  plan  on  which  this  is 
effected  is  to  take  up  each  king,  whether  of  Judah  or  of 
Ephraim,  in  the  order  of  his  accession  to  the  throne,  and 
follow  his  reign  to  the  end.  For  example,  after  the  history  of 
Asa  of  Judah  we  have  the  story  of  all  the  northern  kings, 
from  Nadab  to  Ahab,  who  came  to  the  throne  in  Asa's  life- 
time, and  then  the  narrative  goes  back  to  Jehoshaphat  of 
Judah,  who  came  to  the  throne  in  the  fourth  year  of  Ahab. 
For  the  better  execution  of  this  plan  the  history  of  each 
reign  is,  so  to  speak,  framed  in  and  kept  apart  by  an  intro- 
duction and  conclusion  of  stereotyped  form  (2  Kings  xiii.  1) : 
"  In  the  three  and  twentieth  year  of  Joash  the  son  of  Ahaziah 
king  of  Judah  Jehoahaz  the  son  of  Jehu  began  to  reign 
over  Israel  in  Samaria,  and  reigned  seventeen  years."  .  .  . 
(ver.  8)  "  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jehoahaz,  .  .  .  are  they 
not  written  in  the  book  of  the  chronicles  of  the  kings  of 
Israel  ?  And  Jehoahaz  slept  with  his  fathers ;  and  they 
buried  him  in  Samaria :  and  Joash  his  son  reigned  in  his 
stead."  For  the  kings  of  Judah  the  formula  is  slightly  fuller 
but  of  the  same  type. 

These  set  formulas  constitute  a  chronological  framework 
binding  the  whole  narrative  together.  But  the  details  within 
the  framework  do  not  form  a  continuous  story,  and  are  plainly 
not  all  written  by  one  hand  or  on  a  uniform  plan.  One 
reign  is  full  of  striking  episodes  and  picturesque  incident, 
another  is  comparatively  barren  in  detail  and  style,  and 
sometimes  we  find  sections  that  are  distinguished  not  only 
by  variety  of  style  and  phrase  but  by  marked  peculiarities  of 
grammatical  form.     On  closer  examination  we  observe  that 


116  THE    BOOKS 


each  reign  is  furnished  with  a  brief  epitome  of  affairs,  a  mere 
enumeration  of  important  events,  combined  with  a  moral 
judgment  on  the  king.  For  some  reigns  we  have  nothing 
more  than  this  meagre  epitome ;  but  even  where  the  story  is 
filled  out  by  long  and  interesting  narratives  the  epitome  is 
not  lacking.  It  forms,  along  with  the  chronological  frame- 
work, a  uniform  feature  in  the  history,  and  appears  to  be 
based  on  the  royal  chronicles  or  official  records  of  the  two 
kingdoms,  to  which  reference  is  regularly  made  at  the  close 
of  each  reign.  That  the  epitome  is  all  by  one  hand  is  evident 
from  the  precise  similarity  in  tone  and  language  which  marks 
all  its  moral  judgments  on  the  kings.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  longer  and  richer  narratives  show  great  variety  of  tone 
and  style,  and  in  many  cases  it  is  clear  from  the  nature  of 
their  contents  that  they  cannot  be  derived  from  the  royal 
chronicles.  The  sympathetic  account  of  Elijah's  work,  for 
example,  cannot  have  been  recorded  in  the  annals  of  his 
enemy  Ahab.  The  compiler  of  the  Book  of  Kings,  therefore, 
must  have  had  access  to  unofficial  as  well  as  to  official 
sources.  From  the  former  he  abstracted  the  brief  notices 
that  make  up  the  skeleton  of  his  work,  but  the  living  flesh 
and  blood  of  the  history  he  supplied  by  long  extracts  from 
narratives  of  a  more  popular  and  interesting  kind. 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  most  of  these  extracts 
were  selected  and  worked  in  by  the  compiler  of  the  epitome, 
who  may  therefore  be  properly  called  the  main  author  of  the 
Book  of  Kings.  But  the  book  did  not  leave  his  hands  in 
absolutely  fixed  and  final  form.  Many  of  the  episodes  are  so 
loosely  attached  to  the  surrounding  context  that  they  might 
be  moved  to  another  place  without  inconvenience.  In  the 
Septuagint  not  a  few  passages  are  transposed,  and  sometimes 
with  advantage  to  the  reader.  For  example,  the  story  of 
Naboth's  vineyard  (1  Kings  xxi.)  stands  in  the  Greek  before 
chap.  XX.,  so  that  the  narrative  of  Ahab's  Syrian  wars  is  made 


OF    KINGS  117 


continuous.  Again,  in  the  history  of  King  Solomon,  which 
is  largely  made  up  of  disjointed  anecdotes  and  notices,  the 
Greek  order  differs  enormously  from  the  Hebrew.  And  here 
we  find  also  variations  in  the  substance  of  the  narrative,  an 
omission  here  and  an  insertion  there,  to  warn  us  that,  in  a 
book  so  loosely  constructed  that  its  parts  can  be  freely  moved 
about,  we  must  also  be  prepared  to  find  unauthorised  addi- 
tions creeping  into  the  text.  This  last  point  is  of  too  much 
consequence  to  be  passed  over  without  further  illustration ; 
and  perhaps  the  best  example  for  our  purpose  is  found  in  the 
history  of  Jeroboam.  The  Greek,  as  commonly  read,  gives 
two  distinct  accounts  of  Jeroboam's  elevation  to  the  throne. 
One  account  agrees  substantially  with  the  Hebrew,  supplying 
only  a  few  various  readings.  Some  of  these  are  improve- 
ments, and  enable  us  to  emend  the  Hebrew  text,  so  as  to  remove 
the  discrepancy  which  every  reader  must  observe  between 
1  Kings  xii.  2,  3,  12,  and  verse  20.  In  the  English  version 
the  emendations  may  be  thus  effected.  Place  xii.  2  before 
xii.  1,  so  as  to  make  Jeroboam  hear  of  Solomon's  death, 
not  of  the  congress  at  Shechem,  and  change  the  last  words 
(by  altering  one  letter  in  the  Hebrew)  into  "Then  Jero- 
boam returned  from  Egypt."  In  verse  3  omit  the  whole 
first  part  down  to  "  came,"  leaving  only  "  And  they  spake 
before  Eehoboam,  saying."  In  verse  12  omit  the  words  "  Jero- 
boam and."  The  whole  is  then  in  accord  with  verse  20,  which 
implies  that  Jeroboam  (though  within  reach,  and  probably 
acting  as  a  secret  instigator  of  the  rebel  leaders)  was  not 
present  at  Shechem. 

This  first  account  is  common  to  the  Hebrew  and  all  Greek 
copies.  The  second  Greek  account,  which  comes  in  after  chap, 
xii.  24  in  many  copies,  goes  again  over  the  whole  ground  of 
chap.  xi.  26  to  xii.  24,  and  partly  in  the  very  same  words. 
But  the  arrangement  is  different,  and  so  are  some  of  the 
leading  incidents.     Jeroboam  (as  the  first  account  also  hints) 


118  THE    HISTORY  lect.  v 

was  engaged  in  a  plot  against  Solomon  before  he  fled  to 
Egypt.  On  Solomon's  death  he  returned  to  his  native  city, 
fortified  by  a  marriage  with  an  Egyptian  princess,  and  put 
himself  at  the  head  of  Ephraim.  Then  he  convened  the 
congress  at  Shechem,  which  issued  in  the  revolt  of  all  the 
northern  tribes.  But  the  most  serious  difference  between 
the  two  accounts  lies  in  the  action  ascribed  to  the  prophets 
Ahijah  and  Shemaiah.  In  the  Hebrew  the  promise  of  king- 
ship over  ten  tribes  was  given  to  Jeroboam  by  Ahijah  at 
Jerusalem  in  the  time  of  Solomon.  In  the  second  Greek 
account  there  is  nothing  of  this,  but  a  similar  prophecy,  with 
the  same  symbolism  of  the  torn  mantle,  is  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Shemaiah  at  the  congress  at  Shechem. 

The  two  Greek  accounts  of  how  Jeroboam  became  king 
cannot  possibly  have  stood  from  the  first  in  the  same  volume. 
They  are  alternative  versions  of  a  single  story,  and  though 
both  of  them  evidently  rest  on  Hebrew  originals,  they  repre- 
sent two  distinct  recensions  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Thus  it 
appears  that,  when  the  two  versions  were  made,  the  Hebrew 
text  was  still  so  little  fixed  that  one  copy  could  ascribe  to 
Shemaiah,  at  Shechem,  in  the  days  of  Eehoboam,  what 
another  copy  ascribed  to  Ahijah,  at  Jerusalem,  in  the  days  of 
Solomon.  It  is  certain  that  one  or  other  account  must  be 
wrong ;  but  it  is  probable  that  neither  account  forms  any 
part  of  the  original  history.  If  the  original  compiler  of  the 
Book  of  Kings  had  related  the  story  of  Ahijah's  tearing  his 
garment  into  twelve  pieces,  and  giving  ten  to  Jeroboam  in 
promise  of  sovereignty,  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  a  later 
copyist  would  have  ventured  to  suppress  this  narrative  and 
substitute  another  entirely  different ;  and,  further,  when  we 
look  at  Ahijah's  prophecy,  as  it  is  given  in  1  Kings  xi.  29-39, 
we  cannot  but  feel  that  it  fits  badly  into  the  context.  At 
verses  26,  27  we  are  promised  an  account  of  a  rebellion  of 
Jeroboam  against  Solomon ;  and  verse  40,  which  relates  that 


OF  JEROBOAM  119 


Solomon  sought  to  kill  Jeroboam,  seems  to  imply  that  some 
overt  act  of  rebellion  really  took  place.  But  the  intervening 
verses  tell  only  of  Ahijah's  prophecy,  which,  as  we  are  ex- 
pressly told,  was  a  private  communication  to  Jeroboam  of 
which  no  third  party  could  know  anything. 

To  all  this  you  may  object  that  one  form  of  the  Greek 
bears  out  the  Hebrew  text,  and  that  it  is  unfair  to  build 
on  the  second  Greek  version,  which  may  be  a  quite  recent 
interpolation.  But  it  is  certain  that  the  second  as  well  as 
the  first  Greek  is  translated  from  the  Hebrew,  and  therefore 
deserves  some  consideration.  And,  further,  it  is  noteworthy 
that  where  Ahijah  is  again  mentioned  in  the  Hebrew  in 
chap,  xiv.,  the  Septuagint  shows  a  blank.^  This,  indeed, 
seems  to  be  due  to  a  transposition ;  for  a  shorter  form  of 
the  prophecy  of  Ahijah  to  Jeroboam's  wife  still  occurs  in 
the  second  Greek,  in  an  impossible  place,  wedged  into  the 
account  of  the  events  that  preceded  the  congress  of  Shechem. 
But  while  the  Hebrew  of  chap.  xiv.  distinctly  refers  to 
Ahijah's  earlier  prophecy  to  Jeroboam,  this  Greek  version 
introduces  him  as  a  new  personage  who  has  not  been  heard,  of 
before.  How  can  we  then  escape  the  inference  that  both 
parts  of  the  story  of  Ahijah  represent  a  fluctuating  and 
uncertain  element  in  the  text,  which  cannot  be  accepted  with 
confidence  as  part  of  old  and  genuine  historical  tradition  ? 

Now  I  cannot  but  suppose  that  to  some  of  you  the  idea 
that  a  whole  narrative  could  be  interpolated  into  the  Hebrew 
text  must  appear  both  startling  and  extravagant.  And  if 
the  case  with  which  we  have  been  dealing  stood  alone,  one 
would  hesitate  to  build  on  it.  But  there  are  other  cases  of 
the  same  kind,  where  the  presence  of  an  interpolation  forces 
itself  on  our  notice  by  manifest  inconsistencies  in  the  Hebrew 
text,  and  where  the  variations  of  the  Septuagint  serve  not  to 
create  the  diflSculty,  but  to   remove  it.     One  of  the  most 

^  In  some  copies  tlie  blank  is  supplied  from  Aquila's  version. 


120  DAVID    AXD  LECT.  V 

familiar  and  striking  of  these  is  the  story  of  David  and 
Goliath  (1  Sam.  xvii.),  which,  as  it  appears  in  our  English 
Bible,  presents  inextricable  difficulties.  In  chap.  xvi.  14  sqq. 
we  are  told  how  David  is  introduced  to  the  court  of  Saul, 
and  becomes  a  favourite  with  the  king.  Then  suddenly  we 
have  in  chap.  xvii.  the  account  of  a  campaign,  and  find  that 
David,  although  he  was  Saul's  armour-bearer,  did  not  follow 
him  to  the  field.  This  is  singular  enough,  and  it  is  not  made 
more  intelligible  by  xvii.  15,  which  explains  that  David 
used  to  go  to  and  fro  from  Saul's  court  to  feed  his  father's 
sheep  at  Bethlehem  (see  R  Y. ;  the  translation  of  A.  V.  is 
inaccurate).  Presently  David  is  sent  by  his  father  on  a 
message  to  the  camp  to  carry  supplies  to  his  brothers.  He 
is  also  entrusted  with  a  small  gift  to  the  captain  of  their 
thousand,  i.e.  of  the  local  regiment  of  militia  to  which  they 
belong ;  but  he  has  no  such  gift  for  Saul,  and  does  not  even 
present  himself  at  headquarters  to  salute  the  king.  And, 
further,  when  he  reaches  the  camp,  his  brethren  treat  him 
with  a  degree  of  petulance  not  likely  to  be  displayed  even 
by  elder  brothers  to  a  youth  who  already  stood  well  at  court. 
But,  in  fact,  it  appears  from  the  close  of  the  chapter  that 
David  is  utterly  unknown  at  court,  neither  Saul  nor  Abner 
having  ever  heard  of  him  before.  But  in  the  Septuagint 
version  xvii.  12-31,  41,  50,  and  also  the  verses  from  xvii.  55 
to  xviii.  5  inclusive,  are  omitted,  and  when  these  are  removed 
we  get  a  far  more  consistent  account  of  the  matter.  We 
find  David  in  the  camp  (xvii.  54)  and  close  to  the  person  of 
Saul  (ver.  32),  just  as  we  should  expect  from  chap.  xvi. 
AYhen  all  are  afraid  to  face  the  Philistine  champion,  he 
volunteers  to  accept  the  challenge,  and  so  springs  at  once 
from  the  position  of  a  mere  apprentice  in  arms  to  that  of  a 
celebrated  warrior.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  take  the  verses 
omitted  in  the  Septuagint  and  read  them  consecutively,  we 
cannot  fail  to  observe  that  they  are  fragments  of  an  independ- 


LECT.  V  GOLIATH  121 

ent  account  which  gives  a  different  turn  to  the  whole  story. 
According  to  this  account  David  was  still  an  unknown 
shepherd  lad  when  his  father  sent  him  to  the  camp  with 
provisions  for  liis  brethren  and  he  volunteered  to  fight  the 
Philistine.  After  the  victory  he  was  retained  at  court,  and 
Jonathan,  with  impulsive  generosity,  at  once  received  him  as 
his  bosom  friend.  It  is  needless  to  insist  that  this  account 
is  inconsistent  with  that  which  the  text  of  the  LXX.  offers, 
and  that  the  slight  attempt  to  reconcile  the  two  which  is 
made  in  xvii.  15  is  totally  inadequate.  There  are  only  two 
alternatives  before  us.  Either  we  must  recognise  that  the 
LXX.  has  preserved  the  true  text,  and  that  the  additions  of 
the  Hebrew  are  interpolations,  fragments  of  some  lost  history 
of  David,  which  have  got  into  the  Hebrew  text  by  accident, 
or  else  we  must  suppose  that  the  shorter  text  is  due  to  a 
deliberate  omission ;  that  is  to  say,  the  translators,  or  some 
Hebrew  scribe  before  their  time,  may  have  felt  the  difficulties 
that  encumbered  the  longer  text,  and  deliberately  left  out  a 
number  of  verses  in  order  to  make  the  narrative  run  more 
smoothly.  But  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  simple  omis- 
sions, made  without  changing  a  word  of  what  was  left,  could 
produce  a  complete  and  consecutive  narrative.  It  is  obvious 
that  verse  32  follows  on  verse  11  much  more  smoothly  than 
verse  12  does.  And  it  is  still  more  remarkable  that  verses 
12-31  are  quite  complete  in  themselves,  as  far  as  they  go. 
They  take  nothing  for  granted  that  has  been  already  men- 
tioned in  verses  1-11,  but  tell  all  about  the  campaign,  the 
champion,  and  so  forth,  over  again,  in  a  way  perfectly  natural 
in  an  independent  story,  but  not  natural  if  the  whole  chapter, 
as  it  stands  in  the  Hebrew,  was  originally  a  continuous  narra- 
tive. Note  also  that  xvii.  1-11  are  plainly  part  of  a  his- 
tory of  public  affairs ;  it  is  Saul  and  the  children  of  Israel 
that  occupy  the  foreground  of  the  narrative.  But  as  plainly 
verses  12-31  are  part  of  a  biography  of  David;   he  is  the 


122  HISTORY    OF 


central  figure  whose  movements  are  followed,  and  public  affairs, 
the  campaign,  the  champion,  the  king's  promise  to  the  victor, 
are  all  brought  in  at  the  point  where  they  touch  him.  Thus 
the  champion  comes  up  and  is  introduced  to  us  by  name, 
while  David  is  talking  with  his  brethren,  and  the  king's 
promise  is  first  referred  to  in  a  conversation  with  David. 
Moreover,  that  promise  itself  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the 
narrative  of  verses  12-31  is  a  fragment  foreign  to  the  main 
narrative  of  the  Book  of  Samuel ;  for  though  David  did  ulti- 
mately marry  the  king's  daughter,  he  did  not  receive  her 
hand  as  a  reward  for  slaying  the  Philistine,  but  for  quite 
different  services,  as  we  shall  see  presently.  On  the  whole, 
therefore,  we  must  conclude  that  the  verses  lacking  in  the 
Septuagint  are  not  arbitrarily  omitted.  They  are  interpola- 
tions in  the  Hebrew  text,  extracts  from  a  lost  biography  of 
David,  which  some  ancient  reader  must  have  inserted  in  his 
copy  of  the  Book  of  Samuel.  At  first,  we  may  suppose,  they 
stood  in  the  margin,  and  finally,  like  so  many  other  marginal 
glosses  on  ancient  books,  they  got  into  the  text ;  but  they 
were  not  found  in  the  text  that  lay  before  the  Septuagint 
translators.-^ 

Another  excellent  example  of  the  critical  value  of  the 
Septuagint  may  be  found  in  the  account  of  the  gradual 
progress  of  Saul's  hostility  to  David  (1  Sam.  xviii.).  When 
the  women  came  out  to  meet  the  victorious  Israelites  and 
praised  David  above  Saul — 

1  Scam,  xviii.  8. — Saul  was  very  wroth  and  the  saying  displeased  him 
[LXX.  Saul],  and  he  said,  They  have  ascribed  unto  David  myriads, 
and  to  me  they  have  ascribed  thousands,  a7id  what  can  he  have  more 
but  the  kingdom  ?  (9.)  And  Saul  eyed  David  from  that  day,  and  forioard. 
(10,  11.)  Next  day  Saul  casts  a  javelin  at  David,  (12.)  And  Saul  was 
afraid  of  David,  because  the  Lord  was  with  him  and  was  departed  from 
Saul.  (13.)  And  ^aw^  removed  him  from  his  person,  and  made  him 
his  captain  over  a  thousand,  and  he  went  out  and  in  before  the  people. 
(14.)  And  David  was  successful  in  all  that  he  undertook,  and  the  Lord 

^  For  further  remarks  on  this  passage  see  additional  Note  A. 


LECT.  V  DAVID   AND    SAUL  123 

was  with  liim.  (15.)  And  when  Saul  saw  that  he  was  so  successful,  he 
dreaded  him.  (16.)  But  all  Israel  loved  David,  because  he  went  out 
and  came  in  before  them.  (17-19.)  Saul  promises  Merab  to  David,  hut 
disappoints  him.  (20-27.)  Michal  falls  in  love  with  David,  and  Saul 
avails  himself  of  this  oi^portunity  to  put  him  on  a  dangerous  enterprise 
in  the  hope  that  he  will  fall.  David,  however,  succeeds,  and  marries 
Michal.^  (28.)  And  when  Saul  saw,  and  knew  that  the  Lord  was  with 
David,  and  that  Michal  the  daughter  of  Saul  (LXX.  all  Israel)  loved 
him,  (29)  he  came  to  fear  David  stillmore,  aiid  hated  David  continually. 
(30.)  Thereafter  David  again  distinguishes  himself  in  war.  (xix.  1.) 
Saul  proposes  to  his  son  and  servants  to  kill  David. 

The  words  and  verses  quoted  or  summarised  in  italics  are 
omitted  in  the  Septuagint.  Without  them  the  progress  of  the 
narrative  is  perspicuous  and  consistent.  Saul's  jealousy  is 
first  roused  by  the  praises  bestowed  on  David,  and  he  can 
no  longer  bear  to  have  him  constantly  attached  to  his  person. 
Without  an  open  breach  of  relations,  he  removes  him  from 
court  by  giving  him  an  important  post.  David's  conduct, 
and  the  popularity  he  acquires  in  his  new  and  more  in- 
dependent position,  intensify  Saul's  former  fears  into  a 
fixed  dread.  But  there  is  still  no  overt  act  of  hostility 
on  the  king's  part;  he  hopes  to  lead  David  to  destruction 
by  stimulating  his  ambition  to  a  desperate  enterprise;  and 
it  is  only  when  this  policy  fails,  and  David  returns  to  court 
a  universal  favourite,  with  the  new  importance  conferred  by 
his  alliance  with  the  royal  family,  that  Saul's  fears  wholly 
conquer  his  scruples,  and  he  plans  the  assassination  of  his 
son-in-law.  The  three  stages  of  this  growing  hostility  are 
marked  by  the  rising  strength  of  the  phrases  in  verses  12, 
15,  29.  The  additions  of  the  Hebrew  text  destroy  the 
psychological  truth  of  the  narrative.  Here  Saul's  fears 
reach  the  highest  pitch  as  soon  as  his  jealousy  is  first 
aroused,  and  on  the  very  next  day  he  attempts  to  slay 
David  with  his  own  hand.  In  the  original  narrative  this 
attempt  comes  much  later,  and  is  accepted  by  David  as  a 

^  The  words  in  21  and  26,  which  refer  to  the  incident  of  i\rerab,  are  not  in 
the  LXX. 


124  GREEK    TEXT    OF  lect.  v 

warning  to  flee  at  once  (xix.  10).  The  other  additions  are 
equally  inappropriate,  and  the  episode  of  Merab  is  particu- 
larly unintelligible.  It  seems  to  hang  together  with  xvii. 
25,  that  is,  with  the  interpolated  part  of  the  story  of 
Goliath ;  and  in  2  Sam.  xxi.  8,  Michal,  not  Merab,  appears 
as  the  mother  of  Adriel's  children.  In  that  passage  the 
English  version  has  attempted  to  remove  the  difficulty  by 
making  Michal  only  the  foster-mother,  but  the  Hebrew  will 
not  bear  such  a  sense. 

Here,  then,  we  have  another  case  where  all  probability 
is  in  favour  of  the  Greek  text,  and  a  fresh  example  of 
the  principle  alluded  to  in  the  last  Lecture,  that,  where 
there  are  two  recensions  of  a  passage,  the  shorter  version 
is  in  most  cases  to  be  recognised  as  that  which  is  nearest 
to  the  hand  of  the  original  author.  Sometimes,  indeed, 
we  meet  with  an  insertion  which  is  valuable  because  de- 
rived from  an  ancient  source,  such  as  the  quotation  from 
the  Book  of  Jashar,  preserved  in  the  Septuagint  of  1 
Kings  viii.  53.  But  seldom  indeed  did  a  copyist,  unless 
by  sheer  oversight,  omit  anything  from  the  copy  that  lay 
before  him.^ 

A  remarkable  case  of  variations  between  the  Hebrew  and 
the  Greek  is  found,  where  we  should  least  expect  it,  within 
the  Pentateuch  itself.  The  translation  of  the  Law  is  the 
oldest  part  of  the  Septuagint,  and  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews 
was  much  the  most  important.  And  as  a  rule  the  variations 
are  here  confined  within  narrow  limits,  the  text  being  already 
better  fixed  than  in  the  historical  books.  But  there  is  one 
considerable  section,  Exod.  xxxv.-xL,  where  extraordinary 
variations  appear  in  the  Greek,  some  verses  being  omitted 
altogether,  while  others  are  transposed  and  knocked  about 
with  a  freedom  very  unlike  the  usual  manner  of  the 
translators   of  the  Pentateuch.      The  details  of  the  varia- 

^  See  further,  on  this  subject,  additional  Note  B. 


LECT.  V  EXODUS    XXXV. -XL.  125 

tions  need  not  be  recounted  here;  they  are  fully  exhibited 
in  tabular  form  in  Kuenen's  Onderzoeh,  2d  ed.,  vol.  i.  p.  77, 
and  in  Driver's  Introduction,  p.  37  sq.  The  variations 
prove  either  that  the  text  of  this  section  of  the  Pentateuch 
was  not  yet  fixed  in  the  third  century  before  Christ,  or 
that  the  translator  did  not  feel  himself  bound  to  treat  it 
with  the  same  reverence  as  the  rest  of  the  Law.  But 
indeed  there  are  strong  reasons  for  suspecting  that  the 
Greek  version  of  these  chapters  is  not  by  the  same  hand 
as  the  rest  of  the  Book  of  Exodus,  various  Hebrew  words 
being  represented  by  other  Greek  equivalents  than  those 
used  in  the  earlier  chapters.  And  thus  it  seems  possible 
that  this  whole  section  was  lacking  in  the  copy  that  lay 
before  the  first  translator  of  the  Law.  It  is  true  that  the 
chapters  are  not  very  essential,  since  they  simply  describe, 
almost  in  the  same  words,  the  execution  of  the  directions 
about  the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture  already  given  in 
chaps,  xxv.-xxxi.  Most  modern  critics  hold  chaps,  xxxv- 
xl.  for  a  late  addition  to  the  text,  and  see  in  the  variations 
between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  proof  that  the  form 
of  the  addition  underwent  changes,  and  was  not  finally 
fixed  in  all  copies  when  the  Septuagint  version  was  made. 
In  favour  of  this  view  several  considerations  may  be  ad- 
duced which  it  would  carry  us  too  far  to  consider  here. 
But  in  any  case  those  who  hold  that  the  whole  Pentateuch 
dates  from  the  time  of  Moses,  and  that  the  Septuagint 
translators  had  to  deaj.  with  a  text  that  had  been  fixed 
and  sacred  for  a  thousand  years,  have  a  hard  nut  to 
crack  in  the  wholly  exceptional  freedom  with  which  the 
Greek  version  treats  this  part  of  the  sacrosanct  Torah. 

These  examples  must  suffice  as  indications  of  what  may 
be  learned  from  the  Septuagint  with  regard  to  the  way  in 
which  the  Biblical  books  were  originally  compiled,  and 
the   changes   which    the    text   underwent   at   the   hand   of 


12  G  EARLIEST    HISTORY  lect.  v 

later  editors.  There  is  yet  another  important  matter — the 
history  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon — which  may  be  most 
conveniently  approached  by  comparing  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  Bibles,  but  this  subject  I  propose  to  defer  to 
another  Lecture.  The  lessons  which  we  have  already 
learned  from  the  Septuagint  have  applications  of  a  far- 
reaching  kind  that  have  not  yet  been  considered,  and  to 
which  we  may  profitably  turn  our  attention  before  we  pass 
on  to  a  new  topic. 

The  variations  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  give 
us  a  practical  insight  into  the  kind  of  changes  to  which 
the  Old  Testament  text  was  exposed  in  the  course  of 
transmission,  and  the  kind  of  work  which  compilers  and 
editors  did  in  the  way  of  retouching  the  text,  rearranging 
its  component  parts,  and  introducing  new  matter.  But, 
after  all,  the  Hebrew  text  only  represents  one  manuscript 
and  the  Septuagint  another.  By  direct  comparison  of  the 
two  we  learn  broadly  how  great  the  variations  between  copies 
still  were  in  the  third  century  B.C.  or  later,  and  we  get  also  a 
general  and  most  instructive  insight  into  the  cause  of  these 
differences.  But  two  copies  are  not  enough  to  give  us  a  full 
knowledge  of  all  the  variations  that  were  still  found  in  MSS. 
at  the  time  when  the  Septuagint  version  was  made ;  much 
less  are  they  enough  to  enable  us  to  determine  all  the  vicis- 
situdes through  which  each  book  had  passed  in  earlier  ages. 
It  is  to  be  presumed  that  the  same  causes  which  make  the 
Septuagint  so  different  from  the  Hebrew  had  always  been  at 
work  in  the  transmission  of  the  text ;  and  we  have  no  right 
to  suppose  that,  in  all  passages  which  they  affected,  one  or 
other  of  the  two  copies  before  us  must  have  preserved  the 
original  hand  of  the  first  autlior.  In  some  cases  the  Hebrew 
text  is  evidently  better  than  the  Greek,  in  others  the  converse 
is  true  ;  but  both  give  us  a  text  which  has  passed  through 
the  hands  of  many  editors  and  copyists,  who  dealt  very  freely 


LECT.  V  OF    THE    TEXT  127 

with  the  materials  before  them,  and  sometimes  added  matter 
of  doubtful  authority,  derived  from  inferior  sources.  Now 
the  genealogy  of  manuscripts  is  like  the  genealogy  of  men ; 
the  copy  used  by  the  Septuagint  and  the  copy  represented  by 
our  Hebrew  Bible  are  cousins,  and  to  judge  by  their  general 
resemblance  not  very  distant  cousins.  At  all  events,  as 
cousins  they  have  a  common  ancestor,  or  as  critics  would  say, 
a  common  archetype,  a  manuscript  from  which  both  texts 
have  descended  through  successive  generations  of  copies  and 
copies  of  copies.  It  is  not  probable  that  this  archetype  was 
separated  by  many  generations  from  the  time  of  the  Septu- 
agint translators ;  it  would  be  a  very  bold  thing  to  suppose 
that  for  any  part  of  the  Old  Testament  the  two  recensions 
had  branched  off  before  the  time  of  Ezra.  To  any  changes 
that  may  have  been  made  on  the  text  before  the  date  of 
the  common  archetype  the  comparison  of  the  Greek  and  the 
Hebrew  can  afford  no  clue  ;  yet  the  older  books  must  have 
been  copied  and  recopied  many  times  before  that  archetype 
was  written,  and  every  time  they  were  copied  there  was  at 
any  rate  a  possibility  that  changes  would  creep  into  the  text 
— changes  of  the  same  general  kind  as  now  separate  the  two 
extant  recensions.  To  the  way  in  which  the  text  was  treated  in 
the  earliest  times,  hefore  the  date  of  the  common  archetype  of  the 
Greek  and  Hebrew,  we  have  no  clue  except  iiiternal  evidence. 
"  Very  good,"  says  the  conservative  school ;  "  and  that  being 
so,  there  is  an  end  of  the  matter.  For  internal  evidence  is 
notoriously  uncertain  and  delusive,  and  so  our  best  course  is 
quietly  to  acquiesce  in  what  we  have  received  by  tradition." 
This  is  a  convenient  counsel,  and  appeals  to  the  indolence  that 
forms  a  part  of  every  man's  nature,  even  though  he  be  bound 
by  the  most  sacred  vows,  and  by  the  responsibility  of  high 
office  in  the  churches,  to  give  the  strength  of  his  life  to  the 
study  of  divine  truth.  To  such  men,  above  all  others,  a  short 
and  easy  argument,  which  can  be  learned  and  repeated  in  an 


128  INTERNAL  lect.  v 

armchair,  and  which  serves  the  double  purpose  of  furnishing 
a  plausible  reply  to  suspicious  innovations  and  dispensing 
the  man  who  uses  it  from  making  a  fresh  and  laborious  study 
of  the  Bible,  comes  either  as  a  godsend  or  as  a  temptation  of 
the  flesh.  I  leave  it  to  the  consciences  of  those  dignitaries 
and  leaders  of  the  English  and  Scottish  churches  who  have 
refused  and  still  refuse  to  study  the  modern  criticism,  to 
determine  whether  their  lofty  indifference  to  matters  that  have 
been  to  every  diligent  student  of  the  Scriptures  the  cause  of 
great  searchings  of  heart,  is  indeed  a  fruit  of  surer  faith  and 
truer  insight  than  is  given  to  those  who  bear  the  burden  and 
heat  of  the  day  in  the  field  of  Biblical  study ;  but  to  plain 
men,  who  desire  to  know  the  truth  and  are  willing  to  look  it 
in  the  face,  I  cannot  think  that  an  airy  contempt  for  all 
internal  evidence  will  be  apt  to  commend  itself  in  the  view  of 
the  facts  that  have  already  come  before  us.  You  propose  (do 
you  ?)  to  acquiesce  in  the  received  tradition  and  to  ask  no 
questions  as  to  the  history  of  the  Biblical  books  beyond  the 
point  for  which  you  have  a  direct  witness  in  the  divergence 
of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  texts.  That  would  be  very  well  if 
the  comparison  of  these  two  texts  had  taught  you  that,  as  far 
back  as  the  third  century  before  Christ,  editors  and  copyists 
scrupulously  abstained  from  touching  a  letter  of  the  books 
they  received  as  holy.  But  we  have  learned  the  very  opposite 
of  this.  We  know  that  changes  were  made  as  far  back  as  we 
can  follow  the  history  of  the  text  by  external  evidence.  To 
shut  our  eyes  to  the  probability  that  similar  changes  were 
made  before  that  time,  and  to  do  this  under  the  name  of  faith, 
is  to  confound  faith  with  agnosticism.  Those  of  us  who  do 
care  to  know  the  truth  for  its  own  sake,  and  not  simply  as 
much  of  the  truth  as  is  consistent  with  going  on  smoothly  in 
our  old  ruts,  will  surely  remember  that  in  all  other  branches 
of  ancient  history  internal  evidence  has  a  recognised  value, 
that  for  many  points  in  the  history  of  the  Biblical  records  no 


LECT.  V  EVIDENCE  129 

other  evidence  is  attainable,  and  that  to  reject  it  for  this 
history  while  it  is  accepted  for  all  others  is  to  place  the  study 
of  the  Bible  at  a  disadvantage,  which  in  the  long  run  can 
only  end  in  its  entire  exclusion  from  the  field  of  sober 
historical  research. 

The  test  of  all  this  lies  in  the  application.  And  to  bring 
the  matter  to  an  issue  in  brief  compass  I  will  not  occupy  your 
time  on  minor  matters.  It  would  be  easy  to  show  that  the 
common  archetype  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  texts  already 
contained  verbal  corruptions,  that  the  text  was  already  in 
some  instances  contaminated  by  glosses,  and  so  forth.  But 
these  things  are  comparatively  trivial.  We  have  seen  that 
in  later  manuscripts  variations  occurred  of  a  far  more  serious 
type.  In  the  story  of  Goliath,  as  we  read  it  in  Hebrew  and 
in  English,  two  narratives  are  mixed  up  together  which  differ 
in  essential  particulars.  The  one  is  not  a  mere  supplement 
to  the  other,  but  if  one  is  true  the  other  must  be  regarded 
as  containincj  serious  errors.  In  that  case,  and  in  the  similar 
case  of  the  history  of  David's  estrangement  from  Saul,  we  still 
have  direct  evidence  from  the  Greek  that  one  of  the  two 
inconsistent  stories  has  inferior  authority  and  came  into  the 
text  at  a  late  date.  Let  us  ask  whether  there  is  convincing 
internal  evidence  that  in  like  manner  some  passages  which 
are  older  than  the  common  archetype,  and  appear  both  in  the 
Greek  and  in  the  Hebrew,  are  nevertheless  of  no  better  autho- 
rity than  the  interpolated  story  of  David  and  Goliath. 

To  reduce  this  inquiry  to  the  simplest  form  I  will  separate 
it  as  far  as  may  be  from  all  questions  as  to  how  and  when 
discrepant  accounts  of  the  same  event  came  into  the  text,  and 
will  simply  address  myself  to  prove  that  the  Bible  does  in 
certain  cases  give  two  accounts  of  the  same  series  of  occur- 
rences, and  that  both  accounts  cannot  be  followed.  The  cases 
in  point  may  again  be  divided  into  two  classes. 

(1.)  Those  in  which  the  two  accounts  are  still  quite  sepa- 

9 


130  DISCREPANT  lect.  v 

rate,  so  that  we  have  no  more  to  do  than  to  put  the  one 
against  the  other. 

(2.)  Cases  where  the  present  context  of  the  narrative 
abeady  presents  an  attempt  to  reconcile  two  accounts  origin- 
ally distinct  and  discordant,  by  working  the  two  (or  parts  of 
them)  into  a  consecutive  story.  The  first  class  of  cases  is 
obviously  the  easiest  to  deal  with,  and  I  propose,  therefore, 
to  begin  with  examples  drawn  from  it. 

(1.)  A  very  simple  case  is  the  twofold  explanation  of  the 
proverb,  "  Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets?"  (1  Sam.  x.  12  ; 
ibid.  xix.  24).  The  same  proverb  cannot  have  two  origins, 
but  nothing  is  commoner  than  to  find  two  traditions  about 
the  origin  of  a  single  saying.  The  compiler  of  the  Book  of 
Samuel  had  two  such  traditions  before  him,  and  thought  it 
best  to  insert  both,  without  deciding  which  deserved  the  pre- 
ference. And  here  it  may  be  noticed  further  that  1  Sam.  xix. 
24  is  inconsistent  with  1  Sam.  xv.  35,  which  tells  us  that 
Samuel  never  saw  Saul  after  the  death  of  Agag.  The  Eng- 
lish Version  departs  from  its  usual  fidelity  when  it  softens 
this  absolute  statement  and  writes  that  "  Samuel  came  no 
more  to  see  Saul." 

An  example  on  a  larger  scale  is  supplied  by  the  two 
accounts  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  and  especially  of  southern 
Canaan.  According  to  Joshua  x.  the  conquest  of  all  southern 
Canaan  from  Gibeon  to  Kadesh-barnea  was  effected  in  a  single 
campaign,  undertaken  by  Joshua  in  person  at  the  head  of  the 
united  forces  of  all  Israel,  immediately  after  the  defeat  of  the 
five  kings  before  Gibeon.  The  conquest  was  complete,  for  the 
enemy  was  exterminated,  not  a  soul  being  left  alive.  But 
according  to  Judges  i.  the  land  of  Judah  was  conquered  not 
by  all  Israel  under  Joshua,  but  by  Judah  and  Simeon  alone. 
As  the  narrative  now  stands  we  learn  from  Judges  i.  1  that 
the  separate  campaign  of  Judah  and  Simeon  took  place  after 
the  death  of  Joshua.     Yet  the  events  of  the  campaign  in- 


LECT.  V  NARRATIVES  131 

eluded  the  taking  of  Hebron  and  Debir,  which,  according  to 
the  other  account,  had  been  already  taken  by  Joshua,  and 
their  inhabitants  utterly  destroyed.  The  difference  in  details 
is  insuperable ;  but  still  more  important  is  the  fundamental 
difference  between  the  two  accounts  as  regards  the  whole 
method  of  the  conquest.  In  Judges  i.  (with  which  agree 
certain  isolated  passages  of  Joshua  that  stand  out  very  clearly 
from  tlie  surrounding  narrative)  the  conquest  of  Canaan  is 
represented  as  a  very  gradual  process,  carried  out  by  each 
tribe  fighting  for  its  own  hand ;  whereas  the  Book  of  Joshua 
depicts  a  series  of  great  campaigns  in  which  all  Israel  fought 
as  a  united  host,  with  the  result  that  the  Canaanites  were 
swept  out  of  existence  through  the  greater  part  of  the 
country,  and  their  vacant  lands  divided  by  lot  among  the 
tribes.  It  is  impossible  that  both  these  accounts  can  be 
correct.  If  Joshua  had  merely  overrun  the  country,  the 
serious  work  of  driving  out  the  Canaanites  and  occupying 
their  land  might  have  remained  for  the  next  generation  ;  but 
the  account  in  Joshua  excludes  any  such  view,  and  says  in 
the  strongest  way  that  the  Canaanites  were  exterminated,  and 
their  lands  occupied  peaceably.  (See  especially  Josh.  x.  xi. 
and  xxi.  43-45.) 

Plainly  we  have  here  two  accounts  of  the  conquest,  which 
were  originally  quite  distinct  and  have  been  united  only  in 
the  most  artificial  manner  by  the  note  of  time  ("  and  it  came 
to  pass  after  the  death  of  Joshua  "),  which  has  been  inserted 
by  a  later  hand  in  Judges  i.  1.  Of  the  two  accounts  that  in 
Judges  is  the  plain  historical  version,  while  the  other  has  this 
characteristic  mark  of  a  later  and  less  authoritative  narrative, 
that  it  gathers  up  all  the  details  of  slow  conquest  and  local 
struggle  in  one  comprehensive  picture  with  a  single  hero  in 
the  foreground.  In  precisely  the  same  way  the  later  accounts 
of  the  establishment  of  the  Saxons  in  England  extend  the 
sphere  of  Hengest's  original  conquests  far  beyond  the  narrow 


132  DEATH    OF    SISERA  lect.  v 

region  to  which  they  are  confined  by  older  and  more  authentic 
tradition. 

As  a  last  example  under  this  head  I  will  take  the  case  of 
the  death  of  Sisera,  for  which  we  have  a  prose  narrative  in 
Judges  iv.  and  the  statements  of  a  contemporary  poem  in 
Judges  V.  In  the  prose  narrative  Jael  kills  Sisera  in  his  sleep 
by  hammering  a  wooden  tent-peg  into  his  forehead — an  ex- 
traordinary proceeding,  for  the  peg  must  have  been  held  with 
one  hand  and  hammered  with  the  other,  which  is  not  a  likely 
way  to  drive  a  blunt  tent-peg  through  and  through  a  man's 
skull  without  awakening  him.     But  in  the  poem  we  read — 

"  He  asked  water,  and  she  gave  him  milk  ; 
She  brought  forth  sour  milk  in  an  ample  bowl." 

Then,  while  Sisera,  still  standing,  buried  his  face  in  the  bowl, 
and  for  the  moment  could  not  watch  her  actions — 

*'  She  put  her  hand  to  the  peg, 
And  her  right  hand  to  the  workmen's  hammer  ; 
And  she  hammered  Sisera,  she  broke  his  head, 
And  crushed  and  pierced  his  temples. 
Between  her  feet  he  sank  down,  he  fell,  he  lay  : 
Between  her  feet  he  sank  down,  he  fell : 
Where  he  sank,  there  he  fell  overcome." 

All  this  is  perfectly  plain  if  we  note  that,  according  to  the 
manner  of  Hebrew  parallelism,  "  she  put  her  hand  to  the  peg  " 
or  pin,  i.e.  the  handle  of  the  hammer,  means  the  same  thing 
as  "  and  her  right  hand  to  the  hammer."  The  act  by  which 
Jael  gained  such  renown  was  not  the  murder  of  a  sleeping 
man,  but  the  use  of  a  daring  stratagem  which  gave  her  a 
momentary  chance  to  deliver  a  courageous  blow.  But  the 
word  ''  peg  "  suggested  a  tent-peg,  and  so  the  later  prose  story 
took  it,  and  thereby  misunderstood  the  whole  thing. 

(2.)  I  now  pass  to  a  more  complicated  class  of  cases, 
where  two  independent  accounts  have  been  woven  together 
by  a   later   editor   so   that   it   requires   some   dissection   to 


LECT.  V  TAKING    OF    AT  133 

separate  them.  The  most  important  series  of  such  cases 
is  found  in  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of  Joshua,  and 
will  engage  our  attention  in  some  detail  at  a  later  point 
in  our  course.  For  the  present  I  will  cite  only  one  simple 
instance  from  this  portion  of  the  history,  viz.  the  account 
of  the  taking  of  Ai  given  in  Joshua  viii.  The  capture  of 
this  city  was  effected  by  stratagem,  Joshua  and  the  main 
body  of  the  host  of  Israel  drawing  the  enemy  away  from 
their  city  by  a  feigned  retreat,  so  that  it  was  left  an  easy 
prey  to  an  ambush  that  lay  concealed  on  the  west  side 
of  the  town.  But  of  the  setting  of  this  ambush  we  have 
two  inconsistent  accounts.  According  to  verse  3  the  ambush 
consisted  of  thirty  thousand  men,  and  was  sent  out  from 
Gilgal  by  night  to  take  up  its  post  behind  Ai,  while 
Joshua  and  the  mass  of  the  host  did  not  leave  Gilgal  till 
the  following  morning  (verses  9,  10).  But  in  verse  12 
the  ambush  consists  of  but  five  thousand  men,  and  is  not 
sent  from  Gilgal,  but  detached  from  the  main  army  after 
Joshua  has  taken  up  his  position  in  front  of  Ai.  These 
are  two  versions  of  the  same  occurrence,  for  in  both  accounts 
the  place  of  ambush  is  the  same,  viz.  the  west  side  of  the 
city  between  Bethel  and  Ai,  and  the  subsequent  verses  speak 
only  of  one  ambush.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  editor 
used,  and  to  some  extent  fused  together,  two  separate  ac- 
counts of  the  taking  of  Ai ;  and  this  conclusion  is  confirmed 
when  we  observe  that  verses  20  and  21  also  tell  the  same 
thing  twice  over  with  slight  variations  of  detail  and  ex- 
pression such  as  would  naturally  occur  in  two  independent 
stories. 

In  the  books  that  follow  Joshua,  cases  where  two  narra- 
tives are  worked  together  to  form  a  mosaic  of  small  fragments 
become  less  frequent,  but  something  of  the  kind  can  still  be 
traced  in  parts  of  the  Book  of  Samuel,  especially  in  the  history 
of  Saul,  where,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  Septuagint  some- 


134  DOUBLETS    IN    THE  lect.  v 

times  helps  us  to  dissect  out  late  additions  to  the  story.  There 
are  other  doublets  (double  versions)  of  passages  in  Saul's 
history  which  are  common  to  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek,  and 
can  be  recognised  only  by  internal  evidence.  Such,  for 
example,  are  the  two  accounts  of  Saul's  rejection  by  Samuel 
at  Gilgal,  of  which  one  is  found  in  1  Sam.  xv.  and  the  other 
from  1  Sam.  xiii.  7  (second  half)  to  ver.  15  (first  halfj,  a  passage 
to  which  chap.  x.  8  must  once  have  formed  the  introduction. 
Any  one  who  reads  chap.  xv.  with  care  must  see  that  the 
writer  of  this  narrative  knew  nothing  of  an  earlier  rejection 
of  Saul.  And  further,  the  Gilgal  episode  in  chap.  xiii.  gives 
no  reasonable  sense.  Saul  had  waited  for  Samuel  the  full 
time  appointed ;  it  was  a  matter  of  urgency  to  delay  military 
operations  no  longer,  and  according  to  ancient  usage  the  war 
had  to  be  opened  with  religious  ceremonies.  What  was  the 
crime  of  performing  these  without  Samuel's  presence  ?  There 
is  not  a  word  in  the  story  to  imply  that  no  one  but  Samuel 
could  do  acceptable  sacrifice,  or  that  the  king's  offence  lay  in 
an  encroachment  on  the  prerogatives  of  the  priesthood.  The 
sin,  if  there  was  a  sin,  lay  in  Saul's  presuming  to  begin  a 
necessary  war  without  Samuel's  express  orders.  But  it  is 
plain  from  the  whole  history  that  the  kings  of  Israel  never 
were  mere  puppets  in  the  hands  of  the  prophets,  and  that  the 
prophets  never  claimed  the  right  to  make  them  so.  The 
story  is  unhistorical,  and  nothing  more  than  an  early  and 
unauthorised  interpolation,  as  appears  from  the  fact  that  both 
xiii.  7  h-16  a,  and  the  associated  verse,  x.  8,  dislocate  the  context 
of  the  passages  in  which  they  are  inserted.^  Here  we  have 
two  versions  of  a  passage  in  Saul's  history  which  have  been 
allowed  to  stand  side  by  side  without  any  attempt  to  work 
them  into  unity.     But  in  the  history  of  Saul's  appointment 

1  See  Wellhausen,  Composition  (1889),  p.  247  sg.  ;  Budde,  Richter  und 
Samuel,  p.  191  sqq.  The  mention  of  Gilgal  in  1  Sam.  xiii.  4  seems  to  have 
been  added  along  with  the  greater  interpolation,  for  Gilgal  is  an  impossible 
rendezvous  for  an  army  gathering  to  meet  a  Philistine  invasion. 


LECT.  V  HISTORY    OF   SAUL  135 

as  king,  where  there  are  also  two  accounts,  each  is  broken  up 
and  passages  of  the  one  are  intercalated  in  the  other.  This 
may  be  shown  by  a  table  as  follows — ^ 

Acct.  A,  1  Sam.  ix.,  X.  1-16.  xi.  1-11.  xi.  15. 

Acct.  B,  1  Sam.  viii.  x.  1-24  (25-27?).  (xi.  12,  13  ?). 

Editor.  (X.  25-27 '.0.  (xi.  12,  13?).  xi.  14. 

The  main  clues  to  this  analysis  are  two.  In  the  first 
place,  the  status  of  Samuel  is  different  in  chaps,  viii.  and  ix. ; 
in  the  former  he  is  the  acknowledged  judge  of  all  Israel,  in 
the  latter  he  is  a  seer  of  great  local  reputation,  but  hardly 
known  outside  of  his  own  district.  In  the  second  place, 
chap.  xi.  presents  Saul  to  us  as  still  a  private  person.  The 
messengers  from  Jabesh  do  not  come  specially  to  seek  him, 
and  he  acts  by  no  public  authority,  but  on  his  own  initiative 
under  the  impulse  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  But  in  chap.  ix.  he 
has  already  been  made  king  amidst  the  acclamations  of  the 
whole  nation.  Other  points  of  difference  I  leave  you  to  note 
for  yourselves ;  the  best  justification  of  the  analysis  is  to 
sketch  the  two  stories,  and  show  that  each  is  complete  in 
itself. 

According  to  the  older  story  (A)  the  establishment  of  the 
kingship  in  Israel  was  not  of  man's  seeking  but  of  God. 
The  Hebrews  were  hard  pressed  by  the  Philistines  and  other 
foes,  against  whom  they  could  make  no  head  for  want  of 
organisation  and  a  recognised  captain.  Only  one  man  in 
Israel,  the  seer  Samuel,  who  in  this  narrative  appears  as 
little  known  beyond  his  own  district,  saw  by  divine  revela- 
tion that  the  remedy  lay  in  the  appointment  of  a  king,  and 
was  guided  to  recognise  the  leader  of  Israel  in  a  young  man, 
the  son  of  a  Benjamite  noble,  who  came  to  consult  him  on  a 
trivial  affair  of  lost  asses.  Seizing  his  opportunity,  Samuel 
took  Saul  aside  and  anointed  him  king  in  the  name  of 
Jehovah,  commanding  him   to  return   home  and  await   an 

1  I  borrow  the  ])lan  of  this  table  from  Driver's  tables  of  the  analysis  of  the 
Hexateuch. 


136  HOW    SAUL 


occasion  to  prove  his  vocation  by  deeds :  "  Do  as  thy  hand 
shall  find;  for  God  is  with  thee."  Saul  obeyed  the  com- 
mand, and  silently  returned  to  the  daily  work  of  his  father's 
estate;  but  God  had  changed  his  heart;  Samuel's  words 
burned  within  him,  and  his  neighbours,  though  they  knew 
not  the  cause,  saw  that  he  was  a  different  man  from  what 
he  had  been.  A  month  later  (1  Sam.  x.  27,  Sept. ;  see  the 
margin  of  E.  V.)  the  opportunity  of  action  arrived.  Jabesh- 
gilead  was  threatened  by  Nahash  the  Ammonite,  and  the 
messengers  whom  the  Gileadites  sent  through  the  land  to 
demand  succour  were  everywhere  received  with  tears  of 
helpless  sympathy.  "  But  the  Spirit  of  God  came  upon 
Saul  when  he  heard  these  things,  and  his  wrath  w^as  kindled 
greatly.  And  he  took  a  yoke  of  oxen,  and  hewed  them  in 
pieces,  and  sent  them  throughout  all  the  coasts  of  Israel  by 
the  hands  of  messengers,  and  said,  Whoso  cometh  not  forth 
after  Saul  [and  after  Samuel],  so  shall  it  be  done  unto  his 
oxen.  And  the  fear  of  the  Lord  fell  upon  the  people,  and 
they  came  out  as  one  man."  ISTahash  was  defeated,  the 
Israelites  knew  that  they  had  found  a  leader,  and  with  one 
consent  they  went  to  Gilgal  and  made  Saul  king  before 
the  Lord. 

In  the  second  account  (B)  all  this  vivid  concrete  picture 
disappears,  and  we  find  in  its  place  a  meagre  skeleton  of 
narrative  only  just  sufficient  to  support  an  exposition,  in  the 
form  of  speeches,  of  the  author's  judgment  upon  the  Hebrew 
kingship  as  an  institution  not  strictly  compatible  with  the 
ideal  of  Jehovah's  sovereignty  in  Israel.  In  this  narrative 
Samuel  appears  as  the  recognised  head  and  supreme  judge 
of  all  Israel.  In  his  old  age,  when  he  has  delegated  part  of 
his  functions  to  his  sons  and  they  prove  corrupt  judges,  the 
people  insist  on  the  appointment  of  a  king.  Samuel  re- 
monstrates, but  is  divinely  instructed  to  grant  their  wish, 
after  warning  them  that  to  seek  a  human  king  is  to  depart 


LECT.  V  BECAME    KING  137 

from  Jehovah,  and  that  they  will  repent  too  late  of  their 
disobedience,  when  they  experience  the  heavy  hand  of 
despotism.  But  as  they  persist  in  their  wish  a  solemn 
convocation  is  called  at  Mizpeh,  and  appeal  is  made  to  the 
sacred  lot  to  determine  the  tribe,  the  family,  and  the  man  on 
whom  Jehovah's  choice  falls.  When  the  lot  falls  on  Saul  he 
is  nowhere  to  be  found,  till  a  second  oracle  reveals  that  he  is 
hidden  among  the  baggage.  "  And  they  ran  and  fetched  him 
thence :  and  when  he  stood  among  the  people,  he  was  higher 
than  any  of  the  people  from  his  shoulders  and  upward.  And 
Samuel  said  to  all  the  people.  See  ye  him  whom  the  Lord 
hath  chosen,  that  there  is  none  like  him  among  all  the  people  ? 
And  all  the  people  shouted,  and  said,  God  save  the  king." 

It  is  not  so  easy,  nor  is  it  necessary  for  our  present 
purpose,  to  follow  the  double  thread  of  the  narrative  farther. 
All  critics  agree  that  the  immediate  sequel  of  the  first  account 
is  found  in  chaps,  xiii.  xiv.,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  chaps, 
xii.  and  xv.  stand  in  close  connection  with  the  second  account. 
Further,  xi.  14,  which  speaks  of  renewing  the  kingdom,  is 
an  editorial  addition  designed  to  harmonise  the  two  narratives 
by  suggesting  that  Saul  was  crowned  twice.  But  it  is  not 
quite  clear  whether  x.  25-27,  xi.  12,  13,  are  also  editorial 
additions  (Budde)  or  fragments  of  the  second  narrative.  On 
the  latter  view  we  must,  I  think,  suppose  that  that  narrative 
contained  an  account  of  the  war  with  ISTahash  in  a  different 
form,  associating  Samuel  with  the  campaign,  and  making 
Saul  act  at  the  head  of  the  valiant  men  whose  hearts  God 
]iad  touched  (x.  26).  It  is  unreasonable  to  expect  to  attain 
certainty  on  such  minor  points ;  nor  do  they  affect  the  broad 
lines  of  our  analysis  and  the  broad  contrast  between  the  first 
account,  in  which  the  events  unfold  themselves  naturally,  so 
that  the  Divine  Spirit  in  Samuel  and  Saul  guides  the  action 
of  human  forces  without  suppressing  or  distorting  them,  and 
the  second  account,  in  which  the  supernatural  element  is  far 


138  CHARACTERISTICS    OF  lect.  v 

more  mechanical,  and,  if  I  may  venture  to  use  such  a  word, 
imrecd.  In  saying  this  I  do  not  mean  that  the  second  account 
is  a  deliberate  fiction ;  the  incident  of  Saul's  hiding  in  the 
baggage  is  evidently  traditional,  and  indeed  has  close  parallels 
in  Arabian  folk-lore.^  But  the  two  traditions  cannot  both 
be  equally  genuine,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  which  is  the 
older  and  better  one.  In  the  second  account  we  already 
see  the  distorting  influence  on  historical  tradition  of  that 
mechanical  conception  of  Jehovah's  rule  in  Israel  which 
prevailed  more  and  more  among  the  later  Jews,  and  ulti- 
mately destroyed  all  feeling  for  historical  reality,  and  at  the 
same  time  all  true  insidit  into  the  methods  of  divine 
governance. 

According  to  the  prophets  and  apostles  God's  government 
in  Israel  differs  from  His  government  of  the  rest  of  the  world 
in  so  far  as  Israel  had  greater  privileges  and  greater  responsi- 
bilities (Amos  iii.  2,  ix.  7,  8 ;  Acts  xvii.  30  ;  Eom.  ii.  12) ;  a 
thesis  which  by  no  means  involves,  but  rather  implicitly 
excludes,  the  notion  that  the  boundaries  of  Canaan  formed 
a  magic  circle,  within  which  the  ordinary  laws  of  Providence 
were  suspended,  and  the  sequence  of  well-doing  and  pros- 
perity, sin  and  punishment,  was  determined  by  a  special  and 
immediate  operation  of  divine  sovereignty.  But  it  requires 
insight  and  faith  to  see  the  hand  of  God  in  the  ordinary 
processes  of  history,  whereas  extraordinary  coincidences 
between  conduct  and  fortune  are  fitted  to  impress  the  dullest 
minds.  Hence,  when  the  religious  lesson  of  any  part  of 
history  has  been  impressed  on  the  popular  mind,  there  is 

^  See  the  story  about  Mohammed  in  Ibn  Hisham,  p.  116,  and  that  about 
Mosailima  in  Ibn  Sa'd,  ed.  Wellhausen,  No.  101.  These  stories  may  be 
influenced  by  the  Bible,  but  it  is  remarkable  that  both  of  them  bring  out  the 
point  of  the  incident  more  clearly  than  the  passage  of  Samuel  expresses  it. 
The  man  who  stays  behind  with  the  baggage  is  the  youngest  or  obscurest  of 
the  company.  Saul  remained  there  because  "  he  was  little  in  his  own  sight  " 
(1  Sam.  XV.  17).  Compare  the  similar  incidents  in  the  story  of  David, 
1  Sam.  xvi.  11,  xvii,  28. 


LECT.  V  LATER   NARRATIVES  139 

always  a  tendency  to  reshape  the  story  in  sucli  a  way  as  to 
bring  the  point  out  sharply  and  drop  all  details  that  have 
not  a  direct  religious  significance.  There  are  a  hundred 
examples  of  this  in  modern  history  :  the  story  of  the  Armada, 
for  example,  is  habitually  told  in  a  way  that  accentuates  the 
providential  interposition  which  preserved  English  Protest- 
antism— "  afflavit  Deus  et  dissipati  sunt,"  as  the  commemo- 
rative medal  has  it — by  laying  too  little  weight  on  the  action 
of  human  forces  in  which  God's  providence  was  not  less  truly, 
though  it  was  less  strikingly,  present.  The  history  of  the 
Old  Testament,  taken  as  a  whole,  forms  so  remarkable  a  chain 
of  evidence  establishing  the  truth  of  what  the  prophets  had 
taught  as  to  the  laws  of  God's  government  on  earth,  that  we 
cannot  be  surprised  to  find  that  in  the  circles  influenced  by 
prophetic  ideas  all  parts  of  the  historical  tradition  came  to 
be  studied  mainly  in  the  spirit  of  religious  pragmatism. 
That  is  to  say,  religious  students  of  the  past  times  of  the 
nation  concentrated  their  attention  in  an  increasino-  deo^ree, 
and  ultimately  in  an  exclusive  way,  on  the  explanation  of 
events  by  religious  considerations.  The  effect  of  this, 
especially  after  the  establishment  of  the  post-exile  theocracy, 
was  that  the  parts  and  incidents  of  the  history  which  did 
not  admit  of  a  direct  religious  interpretation  fell  out  of  sight, 
and  that  the  story  of  Israel's  past  ultimately  resolved  itself 
into  a  mechanical  sequence  of  sin  and  punishment,  obedience 
and  prosperity.  The  point  of  view  which  Jesus  condemns  in 
Luke  xiii.  1-4,  in  speaking  of  the  Galileans  whose  blood 
Pilate  had  mingled  with  their  sacrifices,  is  that  from  which 
later  Judaism  looks  at  the  whole  sacred  history,  with  the 
result  that  the  manifold  variety  of  God's  workings  among 
men  shrivels  up  into  a  tedious  repetition  of  lifeless  formulas. 
That  this  is  true  as  regards  the  Pabbinical  literature  no 
one  will  attempt  to  deny;  but  the  example  that  has  come 
before  us  leads  us  to  consider  whether,  in  a  less  degree. 


140  THE    BOOK    OF 


something  of  the  same  tendency  may  not  have  to  be  allowed 
for  in  interpreting  parts  of  the  Bible. 

The  chief  case  in  point,  upon  which  critics  have  come  to 
a  very  definite  conclusion,  is  that  of  the  Chronicles  as  com- 
pared with  the  Book  of  Kings.  Our  traditional  education, 
and  our  hereditary  way  of  looking  at  the  Bible,  incline  us 
to  suppose  that  all  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  of  equal 
value  as  historical  authorities;  and  that,  when  Kings  and 
Chronicles  appear  to  differ,  it  is  as  legitimate  to  read  the  older 
history  in  the  light  of  the  newer  as  vice  versd.  In  dealing 
with  sources  for  profane  histor}^,  however,  we  should  never 
dream  of  putting  books  of  such  different  age  on  the  same 
footing ;  the  Book  of  Kings  was  substantially  complete  before 
the  Exile,  in  the  early  years  of  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  while 
the  Chronicler  gives  genealogies  that  go  down  at  least  six 
generations  after  Zerubbabel,  and  probably  reach  to  con- 
temporaries of  Alexander  the  Great.^  This  is  an  interval  of 
at  least  two  hundred  and  fifty  years;  and  it  must  also  be 
remembered  that  the  Book  of  Kings  is  largely  made  up  of 
verbal  extracts  from  much  older  sources,  and  for  many  purposes 
may  be  treated  as  having  the  practical  value  of  a  contem- 
porary history.  Hence,  according  to  the  ordinary  laws  of 
research,  the  Book  of  Kings  is  a  source  of  the  first  class,  and 
the  Chronicles  have  a  very  secondary  value.  It  is  the  rule 
of  all  historical  study  to  begin  with  the  records  that  stand 

^  The  genealogy  of  the  descendants  of  Zerubbabel  in  1  Chron.  iii.  19  sqq. 
is  somewhat  confused,  but  it  seems  to  be  impossible  by  any  fair  treatment  of 
the  text  to  get  less  than  six  generations  (Hananiah,  Shechaniah,  Sheraaiah, 
Neariah,  Elioenai,  Hodaiah  and  his  brethren).  The  text  of  the  Septuagint 
gives  eleven  generations,  and  this  may  be  the  true  reading,  for  it  removes  the 
obscurity  that  attaches  to  the  Hebrew  text  by  the  very  slight  correction,  four 
times  reading  131  for  "'33,  and  once  adding  "131  before  ""Jll  (at  the  end  of 
verse  21).  But  further  it  is  almost  certain  that  Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah 
once  formed  a  single  book  {ivfra,  p.  182  sq.),  and  in  Nehemiah  we  have  mention 
of  Darius  Codomannus  and  of  Jaddua,  who  was  high  priest  at  the  time  of  the 
Macedonian  conquest  (Neh.  xii.  22).  See  further  Driver,  Introduction, 
p.  486,  p.  511  sq. 


CHRONICLES  141 


nearest  to  the  events  recorded  and  are  written  under  the 
living  impress  of  the  life  of  the  time  described.  ]\Iany 
features  of  old  Hebrew  custom,  which  are  reflected  in  lively 
form  in  the  Former  Prophets,  were  obsolete  long  before  the 
time  of  the  Chronicler,  and  could  not  be  revived  except  by 
archaeological  research.  The  whole  life  of  tlie  old  kingdom 
was  buried  and  forgotten  ;  Israel  was  no  longer  a  nation,  but 
a  churcli.  No  theory  of  inspiration,  save  the  theory  of  the 
Koran,  which  boasts  that  its  fabulous  legends  were  super- 
naturally  conveyed  to  Mohammed  without  the  use  of  docu- 
ments or  tradition,  can  affirm  that  a  history  written  under 
these  conditions  is  a  primary  source  for  the  study  of  the 
ancient  kingdom.^  It  is  manifest  that  the  Chronicler,  writ- 
ing at  a  time  when  the  institutions  of  Ezra  had  universal 
currency,  had  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  greatly  different 
praxis  of  Israel  before  the  Exile,  and  that  the  general  picture 
which  he  gives  of  the  life  and  w^orship  of  the  Hebrews  under 
the  old  monarchy  cannot  have  the  same  value  for  us  as  the 
records  of  the  Book  of  Kings.  These  considerations  alone  are 
sufficient  to  condemn  the  use  made  of  the  Chronicles  by  a 
certain  school  of  theolof:^ians,  who,  fmdino'  that  the  narrative 
of  that  book  comes  closer  to  their  own  traditional  ideas  than 
the  record  of  the  ancient  histories,  seek  to  explain  away 
everything  in  the  latter  which  the  younger  historian  does  not 
homologate.  The  Book  of  Kings,  for  example,  contains  a 
mass  of  evidence  that  the  best  monarchs  of  Judah  before  the 
Captivity  countenanced  practices  inconsistent  with  the  Penta- 
teuchal  Law.  Thus  we  are  told  in  1  Kings  xv.  14,  xxii.  43, 
that  Asa  and  Jehoshaphat  did  not  abolish  the  high  places. 
The  Chronicler,  on  the  contrary,  says  that  they  did  abolish 
them  (2  Chron.  xiv.  5,  xvii.  6) — a  flat  contradiction.     There 

^  jMohammed  boasts  of  his  fabulous  version  of  the  story  of  Joseph,  that 
he  had  it  by  direct  revelation,  not  having  known  it  before  (Sura  xii.  3).  The 
Bible  historians  never  made  such  a  claim,  which  to  thinking  minds  is  one  of 
the  clearest  proofs  of  Mohammed's  imposture. 


142  THE    BOOK    OF 


is  an  end  to  historical  study  if  in  such  a  case  we  accept  the 
later  account  against  the  earlier;  for  it  is  evident  that  the 
Chronicler,  writing  at  a  time  when  every  one  was  agreed  in 
rejecting  high  places  as  idolatrous,  was  unable  to  conceive 
that  good  kings  could  have  tolerated  them.^  We  shall  see, 
however,  in  Lecture  VIII.,  that  a  mass  of  concurrent  evidence, 
derived  from  the  prophets  as  well  as  the  historical  books, 
shows  that  there  was  no  feeling  against  the  high  places  even 
in  the  most  enlightened  circles  in  Israel  till  long  after  the 
time  of  Asa  and  Jehoshaphat. 

The  cases  where  the  Chronicler  flatly  contradicts  the 
Book  of  Kings  are  pretty  numerous ;  but  there  is  not  one  of 
them  where  an  impartial  historical  judgment  will  decide  in 
favour  of  the  later  account.  It  is  true  that  the  Chronicler 
had  access  to  some  old  sources  now  lost,  especially  for  the 
genealogical  lists  which  form  a  considerable  part  of  his 
work.^  But  for  the  history  proper,  his  one  genuine  source 
was  the  series  of  the  Former  Prophets,  the  Books  of  Samuel 
and  especially  of  Kings.  These  books  he  read  in  manuscripts 
which  occasionally  preserved  a  good  reading  that  has  been 
corrupted  in  the  Massoretic  text  (su2Jra,  p.  68),  but  where 
he  adds  to  the  narrative  of  Kings  or  departs  from  it,  his 
variations  are  never  such  as  to  inspire  confidence.  In  large 
measure  these  variations  are  simply  due  to  the  fact  that, 
as  we  have  already  seen  in  the  example  of  the  high  places, 
he  takes  it  for  granted  that  the  religious  institutions  of  his 
own  time  must  have  existed  in  the  same  form  in  old  Israel. 
Hence  he  assumes  that  the  Levitical  organisation  of  his  own 

1  That  here  the  Chronicler  is  arbitrarily  changing  the  record  appears 
incidentally  from  2  Chron.  xv.  17,  xx.  33,  where  he  is  inconsiderate  enough 
to  copy  the  opposite  statement  of  1  Kings  in  connection  with  some  other 
particulars  which  he  has  occasion  to  transfer  from  that  book  to  his  own. 

^  The  genealogies  are  not  all  of  equal  value,  but  the  great  historical  im- 
portance of  some  of  them  has  been  demonstrated  by  AVellhausen  in  his 
Habilitationschrift,  De  Gentihus  et  Familiis  Judacis,  Gott,  1870.  Only  a 
summary  of  the  results  is  reproduced  in  his  Prolegomena. 


CHRONICLES  143 


time,  and  especially  the  three  choirs  of  singers,  were  estab- 
lished by  David.  Of  all  this  the  old  history  has  not  a  word, 
and  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiali  show  that  even  after 
the  restoration,  a  much  simpler  system  was  in  force,  and 
was  only  gradually  elaborated  into  the  form  described  in 
Chronicles  (infra,  Lecture  VIT.).  But,  indeed,  the  text  of 
Chronicles  contains  distinct  internal  evidence  that  the  author 
is  really  describing  later  institutions,  although  he  brings  his 
description  into  the  life  of  David.  The  gates,  etc.,  mentioned 
in  1  Chron.  xxvi.  presuppose  the  existence  of  a  temple,  and 
as  the  gate  Parbar  bears  a  Persian  name,  it  is  clear  that  he  is 
thinking  of  the  second  Temple.-^  And  this  case  does  not 
stand  alone.  In  2  Chron.  xiii.  10  sqq.  Abijah  boasts  against 
Jeroboam  of  the  superior  legitimacy  of  the  ritual  of  Jerusalem, 
which  w^as  conducted  according  to  all  the  rules  of  the  Law. 
But  the  ritual  described  is  that  of  the  second  Temple,  for 
reference  is  made  to  the  golden  candlestick.  In  Solomon's 
Temple  there  was  not  one  golden  candlestick  in  front  of  the 
oracle,  but  ten  (1  Kings  vii.  49).  Further,  Abijah  speaks  of 
the  morning  and  evening  holocausts.  But  there  is  a  great 
concurrence  of  evidence  that  the  evening  sacrifice  of  the 
first  Temple  was  not  a  holocaust,  but  a  cereal  oblation 
(1  Kings  xviii.  36,  Heh.  ;  2  Kings  xvi.  15  ;  Ezra  ix.  4,  Hch.y 

^  A  curious  point,  remarked  by  Ewald  [Lchrhuch,  §  274  h),  and  more 
clearly  brought  out  by  Wellhausen,  is  that  six  heads  of  the  choir  of  the 
guild  of  Heman  bear  the  names — (1)  I  have  given  great  (2)  and  lofty  help 
(3)  to  him  that  sat  in  distress  ;  (4)  I  have  spoken  (5)  a  superabundance  of 
(6)  prophecies  (1  Chron.  xxv.  4).  As  actual  names  of  men,  in  the  time  of 
David,  these  designations  are  impossible.  But  the  words  seem  to  form  an 
anthem  in  which  six  choirs  of  singers  may  well  have  had  parts,  and  these 
may  have  received  names  from  their  parts.  In  like  manner  Jeduthun,  which, 
if  the  description  of  the  Temple  music  is  literal  history  of  David's  time,  must 
be  the  name  of  a  chief  singer,  is  really,  as  we  see  from  the  titles  of  the  Psalms, 
a  musical  terra. 

^  Cp.  Kuenen,  Religion  of  Israel,  chap.  ix.  note  1.  Note  also,  as 
characteristic  of  the  freedom  used  with  facts  in  the  speeches  in  Chronicles, 
that  in  2  Chron.  xiii.  7  Abijah  says  that  Jeroboam's  rebellion  took  place 
when  Rehoboam  was  a  lad  and  soft-hearted,  and  could  not  pluck  up  courage 


144  THE    BOOK    OF 


So  again,  in  2  Cliron.  v.  4,  the  ark  is  borne  by  Levites,  accord- 
ing to  the  rule  of  the  Levitical  law  ;  but  the  parallel  passage 
of  1  Kings  viii.  3  says  that  it  was  borne  by  the  priests,  and 
the  latter  statement  is  in  accordance  with  Deut.  xxxi.,  and 
with  all  the  references  to  the  carrying  of  the  ark  in  the  pre- 
exilic  histories  (Josh.  iii.  3,  vi.  6,  viii.  33 ;  2  Sam.  xv. 
24,  29).  Once  more,  in  2  Kings  xi.,  Jehoiada's  assistants  in 
the  revolution  which  cost  Athaliah  her  life  are  the  foreign 
bodyguard,  which  w^e  know  to  have  been  employed  in  the 
sanctuary  up  to  the  time  of  Ezekiel  (infra,  p.  262).  But 
in  2  Chron.  xxiii.  the  Carians  and  the  footguards  are  replaced 
by  the  Levites,  in  accordance  with  the  rule  of  the  second 
Temple,  which  did  not  allow  aliens  to  approach  so  near  to  the 
holy  things. 

These  examples  are  enough  to  show  that  the  Chi'onicler 
is  no  authority  in  any  point  that  touches  difference  of  usage 
between  his  own  time  and  that  of  the  old  monarchy  ;  but 
further,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  make  material  changes  in  the 
tenor  of  narratives  that  do  not  agree  with  his  doctrine  of 
the  uniformity  of  religious  institutions  before  and  after  the 
Exile.  Of  this  one  example  must  suffice.  In  2  Kings  xxiii. 
Josiah's  action  against  the  high  places  is  represented  as 
taking  place  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign,  as  the  imme- 
diate result  of  his  repentance  on  hearing  the  words  of  the 
Law  found  in  the  Temple,  and  in  pursuance  of  the  covenant 
of  reformation  made  on  that  occasion.  But  in  2  Chron.  xxxiv. 
the  reformation  begins  in  Josiah's  twelfth  year,  that  is,  as 
soon  as  he  emerged  from  his  minority.-^     Josiah  was  a  good 

to  withstand  the  rebels.  But  according  to  1  Kings  xiv.  21  the  "lad"  was 
forty-one  years  old,  and  he  certainly  did  not  lose  his  kingdom  for  softness  of 
heart. 

^  Josiah  came  to  the  throne  when  he  was  eight  years  old,  so  that  in  his 
twelfth  year  he  would  be  nineteen  years  old.  He  began  to  seek  God,  says  the 
Chronicler,  in  the  eighth  year  of  his  reign,  i.e.  at  the  age  of  fifteen.  Accord- 
ing to  the  ]\Iishna  {Ahoth,  v.  21)  a  boy  should  begin  to  learn  Talmud  at 
fifteen,  marry  at  eighteen,  and  pursue  business  at  twenty. 


CHROKICLES  145 


king,  and  therefore  the  Chronicler  felt  that  there  must  be  a 
mistake  in  the  account  which  made  him  wield  an  independ- 
ent sceptre  for  many  years  before  he  touched  tlie  idolatrous 
abuses  of  his  land.  That  the  result  of  this  is  to  put  the 
solemn  repentance  and  covenant  of  reformation  ten  years 
after  the  reformation  itself  is  an  inconsistency  wliicli  seems 
never  to  have  struck  him. 

The  tendency  to  construct  history  according  to  a  mechan- 
ical rule,  which  we  meet  with  in  this  example,  is  only  one  side 
of  the  general  tendency  of  later  Judaism,  already  characterised, 
to  sacrifice  all  interest  in  the  veritable  facts  of  sacred  history 
to  a  mechanical  conception  of  God's  government  of  the  world 
at  large,  and  of  Israel  in  particular.  Another  side  shows 
itself  in  the  Book  of  Chronicles  in  the  constant  endeavour  to 
make  the  divine  retribution  act  immediately,  after  the  fashion 
of  the  falling  of  the  tower  of  Siloam.  This  is  sometimes 
spoken  of  as  a  moralising  tendency,  and  the  name  is  not 
amiss  if  we  make  it  clear  to  ourselves  that  it  is  moralising  of 
a  different  kind  from  what  we  find  in  the  prophets.  To 
prophets  like  Amos  and  Isaiah,  the  retributive  justice  of  God 
is  manifest  in  the  general  course  of  history.  The  fall  of  the 
Hebrew  nation  is  the  fruit  of  sin  and  rebellion  against 
Jehovah's  moral  commands;  but  God's  justice  is  mingled 
with  long-suffering,  and  the  prophets  do  not  for  a  moment 
suppose  that  every  sin  is  promptly  punished,  and  that  tem- 
porary good  fortune  is  always  the  reward  of  righteousness. 
But  a  very  large  part  of  the  novel  additions  made  in  the 
Chronicles  to  the  old  history  is  meant  to  show  that  in  Israel 
retribution  followed  immediately  on  good  or  bad  conduct, 
and  especially  on  obedience  or  disobedience  to  prophetic 
warnings.  Some  good  remarks  on  this  head,  with  a  list  of 
illustrative  passages,  will  be  found  in  Driver's  Introduction, 
p.  494;  I  must  here  content  myself  with  one  or  two  con- 
spicuous examples  out  of  many. 


146  HISTORICAL    VALUE  lect.  v 

In   1   Kings   xxii.   48   we  read   that   Jehoshaphat   built 
Tarshisli  ships  (i.e.  such  great  ships  as  the  Phoenicians  used 
in  their  trade  with  southern  Spain)  at  Ezion-geber  for  the 
South  Arabian  gold  trade  ;  but  the  ships  were  wrecked  before 
starting.     For  this  the  Chronicler  seeks  a  religious  reason  ; 
and,  as  1  Kings  goes  on  to  say  that,  after  the  disaster,  Ahaziah 
of  Israel  offered  to  join  Jehoshaphat  in  a  fresh  enterprise,  and 
the  latter  declined,  we  are  told  in  2  Chron.  xx.  37  that  the 
king  of  Israel  was  partner  in  the  ships  that  were  wrecked, 
and  that  Jehoshaphat  was  warned  by  a  prophet  of  the  certain 
failure  of  an  undertaking  in  which  he  was  associated  with 
the  wicked  Ahaziah.     That  this  is  a  mere  pragmatical  in- 
ference from  the  story  in  Kings,  and  does  not  rest  on  some 
good  independent  source,  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the 
Chronicler  misunderstands  the  words  of  1  Kings,  and  changes 
"  Tarshish  ships  "  into  "  ships  to  go  to  Tarshish,"  as  if  ships 
for  the  Mediterranean  trade  could  possibly  be  built  on  the 
Gulf  of  Akaba  in  the  Eed  Sea!     On  the  other  hand,  in 
2  Kings  iii.,  we  read  of  a  war  with  Moab,  in  which  Jehosha- 
phat was  associated  with  the  wicked  house  of  Ahab,  and 
came   off  scatheless.      In   Chronicles   this  war  is   entirely 
omitted,  and  in  its  place  we  have  a  war  of  Jehoshaphat  alone 
against  Moab,  Ammon,  and  Edom,  in  which  the  Jewish  king, 
having  begun  the  campaign  with  suitable  prayer  and  praise, 
has  no  further  task  than  to  spoil  the  dead  of  the  enemy  who 
have  fallen  by  one  another's  hands.     The  idea  of  this  easy 
victory  is  taken  from  the  story  of  the  real  war  with  Moab 
(2  Kings  iii.  21  sq.),  where  we  learn  that  the  Moabites  fell  into 
a  trap  by  imagining  that  their  enemies  of  Israel,  Judah,  and 
Edom  had  quarrelled  and  destroyed  one  another.      Let  me 
ask  you,  taking-  this  hint  with  you,  to  read  2  Kings  iii.  and 
2  Chron.  xx.  carefully  through,  and  consider  the  difference 
between  the  old  and  the  new  conception  of  tlie  supernatural 
in  Israel's  history.     In  reading  the  old  account  observe  that 


LECT.  V  OF    CHRONICLES  147 

verses  16,  17,  20  describe  the  way  in  which  the  underground 
water  descending  from  the  Edomite  mountains  can  still  be 
obtained,  by  digging  water  pits,  in  the  Wady  el-Ahsa  ("  valley 
of  water  pits  "),  on  the  southern  frontier  of  Moab,  which  was 
the  scene  of  the  events  in  question.^ 

In  Chronicles  the  kings  undergo  alternate  good  and  bad 
fortune,  according  to  their  conduct  immediately  before.  Reho- 
boam  is  first  good  and  strong,  then  he  forsakes  the  Law,  and 
Shishak  invades  the  land ;  then  he  repents,  and  the  rest  of  his 
reign  is  prosperous.  And  so  it  goes  with  all  his  successors. 
According  to  1  Kings  xv.  14  Asa's  heart  was  perfect  with 
the  Lord  all  his  days.  But  in  his  old  age  he  had  a  disease 
in  his  feet  (1  Kings  xv.  23).  Accordingly  the  Chronicler 
tells  us  that  for  three  years  before  this  misfortune  (2  Chron. 
xvi.  1,  12)  he  had  done  several  wicked  things,  one  of  which, 
his  alliance  with  Damascus,  is  also  recounted  in  Kings,  but 
without  the  slightest  hint  that  there  was  anything  in  it  dis- 
pleasing to  God.  To  bring  this  incident  into  the  place  that 
fits  his  theodicea,  the  Chronicler  has  to  change  the  chronology 
of  Baasha's  reign  (2  Chron.  xvi.  1  compared  with  1  Kings 
XV.  33).  Similarly  the  misfortunes  of  Jehoash,  Amaziah, 
Azariah  are  all  explained  by  sins  of  which  the  old  history 
knows  nothing,  and  Pharaoh  Necho  himself  is  made  a  pro- 
phet, that  the  defeat  and  death  of  Josiah  may  be  due  to 
disobedience  to  revelation  (2  Chron.  xxxv.  21,  22),  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  wicked  Manasseh  is  converted  into  a 
penitent  to  justify  his  long  reign.  All  this  is  exactly  in 
the  style  of  the  Jewish  Midrash;  it  is  not  history  but 
Haggada,  moralising  romance  attaching  to  historical  names 

1  See  'WeWha.usen,  Coynposition,  p.  287,  with  "Wetzsteiii  in  Delitzsch,  Genesis, 
ed.  4,  p.  567  as  there  cited.  Cp.  further  Doughty,  Travels,  i  26  sq.,  and  for 
the  kind  of  bottom,  yielding  water  under  the  sand,  implied  in  the  name  el- 
Ahsa  (el-Hisa,  el-Hisy),  Yacdt,  i.  148  ;  Zohair,  ed.  Landberg,  p.  95  ;  Ibn 
Hisham,  Sira,  p.  71,  1.  9.  The  point  of  the  miracle  lies  in  the  copiousness  of 
the  supply  obtained  by  the  use  of  ordinary  means. 


148  CHRONICLES 


and  events.  And  the  Chronicler  himself  gives  the  name  of 
Midrash  (E.  V.  "  story  ")  to  two  of  the  sources  from  which  he 
drew  (2  Chron.  xiii.  22,  xxiv.  27),  so  that  there  is  really  no 
mystery  as  to  the  nature  of  his  work  when  it  departs  from 
the  old  canonical  histories. 

I  have  dwelt  at  some  length  on  this  topic,  because  the 
practice  of  using  the  Chronicles  as  if  they  had  the  same  his- 
torical value  as  the  older  books  has  done  more  than  any  other 
one  cause  to  prevent  a  right  understanding  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  of  the  Old  Dispensation.  To  admit  what  I  think 
has  been  proved  in  the  previous  pages  involves  a  serious 
shock  to  received  ideas  of  the  equal  authority  of  the  whole 
Hebrew  Canon ;  but  if  the  thing  is  true — and  the  proofs  that 
it  is  true  may  be  greatly  added  to — the  consequences  must 
be  faced.  Moreover,  we  shall  see  in  the  next  Lecture  that 
the  difficulty  as  to  admitting  the  truth  which  is  supposed  to 
arise  from  the  history  of  the  Canon  is  really  imaginary,  and 
that  no  sacred  authority  binding  on  the  Christian  conscience, 
fixes  the  precise  limits  of  the  Canon,  and  excludes  all 
criticism  of  its  contents. 


LECTUEE   VI 

THE   HISTORY   OF   THE   CANON 

In  this  Lecture  I  propose  to  discuss  the  main  points  in  the 
history  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon ;  inquiring  what  books 
were  accepted  by  the  Jews  as  Sacred  Scriptures;  at  what 
date  the  list  of  canonical  books  was  closed  ;  and  on  what 
principles  the  list  was  formed.^  Here  I  would  again  ask  you 
to  begin  by  comparing  the  Hebrew  Bible  with  the  Greek. 

The  Hebrew  Bible  has  twenty-four  books,  arranged  in 
three  great  sections — the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagio- 
grapha.  The  first  section  consists  of  the  Pentateuch,  or,  as 
the  Hebrews  call  it,  the  "Five-Fifths  of  the  Law."  The 
second  section  has  two  subdivisions — (a)  The  old  histories, 
which  were  believed  to  have  prophets  for  their  authors,  and 
are  called  the  "Earlier  Prophets,"  or,  more  exactly,  the 
"  Former  Prophets "  ;  and  (h)  the  prophetic  books  proper, 
which  are  called  the  "Latter  Prophets."  In  these  designa- 
tions, the  words  "  Former  "  and  "  Latter  "  cannot  refer  to  the 
date  of  composition,  but  must  be  taken  to  indicate  the  order 
of  the  books  in  the  canonical  collection.  Each  subdivision 
of  the  Prophets  contains  four  books  ;  for  the  Hebrews  count 

^  On  the  subject  of  this  Lecture  see  especially  the  excellent  little  book  of 
Professor  G.  Wildeboer  of  Groningen  {Die  Entstehung  dcs  Alltestamentlichen 
Kanons,  ed.  2,  Gotha,  1891).  Many  points  of  detail  to  which  it  was  impossible 
to  refer  in  the  present  volume  are  lucidly  discussed  by  Dr.  Wildeboer,  and  by 
my  friend  Prof.  Ryle,  whose  Canon  of  the  0.  T.  (London,  1892)  reaches  me  as 
these  sheets  are  passing  through  the  press. 


150  TWENTY-FOUE   BOOKS  lect.  vi 

but  one  book  of  Samuel  and  one  of  Kings,  and  the  Twelve 
Minor  Prophets  are  reckoned  as  one  book.  The  third  section 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible  consists  of  what  are  called  the  Hac^io- 
grapha,  or  "  Kethubim,"  that  is  [sacred]  writings.  At  the  head 
of  these  stand  three  poetical  books — Psalms,  Proverbs,  and 
Job.  Then  come  the  five  small  books  of  Canticles,  Ptuth, 
Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Esther,  which  the  Hebrews 
name  the  Megilloth,  or  "  rolls."  They  have  this  name  because 
they  alone  among  the  Hagiographa  were  used  on  certain 
annual  occasions  in  the  service  of  the  synagogue,  and  for  this 
purpose  were  written  each  in  a  separate  volume.  Last  of  all, 
at  the  end  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  stand  Daniel,  Ezra  with 
Nehemiah  (forming  a  single  book),  and  the  Chronicles,  also 
forming^  a  sinojle  book.  As  the  contents  of  these  books  are 
historical  and  prophetical,  we  should  naturally  have  expected 
to  find  them  in  the  section  of  Prophets.  The  reason  why 
they  hold  a  lower  place  will  fall  to  be  examined  later.  This 
number  of  twenty-four  books,  and  the  division  into  the  Law, 
the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa,  were  perfectly  fixed  dur- 
ing the  Talmudic  period,  that  is,  from  the  third  to  the  sixth 
century  of  our  era.^  The  order  in  each  division  w^as  to  some 
extent  variable.^     The  number  of  twenty-four  books  seems 

^  The  scheme  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  may  be  put  thus  : — 

I.   The  five-fifths  of  the  Law       ......  5 

II.   The  Prophets- 
Earlier  Prophets  :  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings  .  .  .4 

Later  Prophets  :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  The  Twelve        .              .  4 
III.   Hagiographa  or  Ketftbim — 

Poetical  Books  :  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job        ....  3 

The  Megilloth  :  Canticles,  Ruth,  Lamen. ,  Eccles.,  Esther     .              .  5 

Daniel,  Ezra-Nehemiah,  Chronicles               ....  3 

24 
2  The  fundamental  passage  in  the  Babylonian  Gemara,  Bdbd  Bdthra,  IF.  14, 
15,  says,  "The  order  of  the  prophets  is  Joshua  and  Judges,  Samuel  and 
Kings,  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  Isaiah  and  the  Twelve.  Hosea  is  the  first 
because  it  is  written,  'the  beginning  of  the  word  of  the  Lord  by  Hosea' 
(Hos.  i.  2).  .  .  .  But,  because  his  prophecy  is  written  along  with  the  latest 
prophets,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  he  is  counted  with  them.  Isaiah 
is   earlier  than  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  .  ,   .   But  because  Kings  ends  with 


OF    THK    HEBREW    BIBLE  151 


to  be  found  in  the  Second  (or  Fourth)  Book  of  Esdras, 
towards  the  close  of  the  first  Christian  century.^ 

Anotlier  division  into  twenty-two  books  is  adopted  in  tlie 
earliest  extant  list  of  the  contents  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  that 
given  by  Josephus  in  his  first  book  against  Apion,  chap.  viii. 
This  scheme  was  still  well  known  in  the  time  of  Jerome,  who 
prefers  to  reckon  twenty-two  books,  joining  Euth  to  Judges, 
and  Lamentations  to  Jeremiah ;  although  he  also  mentions 
the  Talmudic  enumeration  of  twenty-four  books,  and  a  third 
scheme  which  reckons  twenty-seven,  dividing  Samuel,  Kings, 
Chronicles,  and  Ezra-Nehemiah,  as  is  done  in  our  modern 
Bibles,  and  separating  Jeremiah  from  Lamentations.  It  is 
proper  to  observe  that  the  scheme  of  twenty-two  books  is 
conformed  to  the  number  of  letters  in  the  Hebrew  alphabet. 
Jerome  draws  a  parallel  between  this  arrangement  and  the 
alphabetical  acrostics  in  the  Psalms,  Lamentations,  and  Pro- 
verbs xxxi.  9-31,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  is 
artificial.  ]^or  is  there  any  clear  evidence  that  it  had  an 
established  place  in  Palestinian  tradition.^ 

destruction  and  Jeremiah  is  all  destruction,  while  Ezekiel  beginning  with  de- 
struction ends  in  consolation  and  Isaiah  is  all  consolation,  destruction  is 
joined  to  destruction  and  consolation  to  consolation.  The  order  of  the 
Hagiographa  is  Ruth  and  Psalms  and  Job  and  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
Canticles,  and  Lamentations,  Daniel  and  Esther,  Ezra  and  Chronicles." 
Compare  Miiller's  note  on  SOplicrim,  iii.  5.  Isaiah  follows  Ezekiel  in  some 
ilSS.  (Lagarde,  Syvimida,  i.  142),  and  the  order  of  the  Hagiographa  varies 
considerably  ;  com  p.  Driver,  Introd.  p.  xxviii.,  and  Ryle,  pp.  229,  281. 

1  Even  after  Professor  Bensly's  researches  the  Latin  text  of  4  Esdras 
xiv.  44,  46  remains  obscure.  Nor  is  the  evidence  of  the  Oriental  versions  quite 
unambiguous.  But  on  the  whole  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  original 
text  spoke  of  ninety-four  books,  of  which  seventy  were  esoteric,  leaving 
twenty-four  published  and  canonical  books.     (See  infra,  p.  168.) 

2  See  the  three  enumerations  in  Jerome,  Prol.  Galcat.  His  order  for 
the  Hagiographa  is  Job,  David,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Daniel, 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  Esther.  On  the  Canon  of  Josephus  see  below,  p.  164  and  note. 
I  agree  with  Wildeboer  that  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  division  into 
twenty-two  books  ever  had  an  established  place  in  Palestine.  Jerome  himself 
in  his  preface  to  Daniel  says  that  the  Jews  reckon  five  books  of  the  Law,  eight 
Prophets,  and  eleven  Hagiographa;  the  testimony  of  Origen,  aj).  Eus.  H.  E. 
vi.  25,  is  plainly  not  an  unmixed  reflex  of  Palestinian  tradition,  since  it 


152  CANON    OF    THE  lect.  vi 

It  is  often  taken  for  granted  that  the  list  of  Old  Testa- 
ment books  was  quite  fixed  in  Palestine  at  the  time  of 
our  Lord,  and  that  the  Bible  acknowledged  by  Jesus  was  pre- 
cisely identical  with  our  own.  But  it  must  be  remembered 
that  we  have  no  list  of  the  sacred  books  earlier  than  the 
time  of  Josephus,  who  wrote  at  the  very  end  of  the  first 
century.  Before  this  date  the  nearest  approach  to  a  cata- 
logue is  the  panegyric  on  tlie  famous  men  of  Israel  in  Eccle- 
siasticus  xliv.-L,  in  which  authors  are  expressly  included. 
The  wTiter  takes  up  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel, 
Kings,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  twelve  Minor 
Prophets  in  order.  He  also  mentions  the  psalms  of  David, 
and  the  songs  proverbs  and  parables  of  Solomon.  Daniel 
and  Esther  are  passed  over  in  silence,  and  Nehemiah  is 
mentioned  without  Ezra.  ISTeither  Philo  nor  the  New  Testa- 
ment enables  us  to  make  up  a  complete  list  of  Old  Testament 
books,  for  there  are  some  of  the  Hagiographa  (Esther,  Canticles, 
Ecclesiastes)  which  are  quoted  neither  by  the  apostles  nor  by 
their  Alexandrian  contemporary.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
is  no  reason  to  believe  that  any  books  were  received  in  Pales- 
tine at  the  time  of  Christ  which  have  now  fallen  out  of  the 
Canon. 

When  we  turn  to  the  Septuagint  we  find,  in  the  first 
place,  a  very  different  arrangement  of  the  books.  There  is 
no  division  into  Law,  Prophets,  and  Hagiographa;  but  the 

includes  not  only  Lamentations  but  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah  in  the  Book  of 
Jeremiah  ;  and  no  weight  can  be  laid  on  Epiphanius,  De.  Mens,  et  Pond.  4 
(ed.  Lagarde,  p.  156),  whose  division  into  four  pentateuchs  and  two  odd 
books  stands  quite  by  itself.  Finally,  the  statement  that  the  Book  of  Jubilees 
reckoned  twenty-two  books  is  not  borne  out  by  the  extant  (Ethiopic)  text,  but 
rests  on  a  doubtful  inference  from  Syncellus  (p.  5,  Bonn  ed.)  and  Cedrenus  (p.  9, 
Bonn  ed.),  where  the  citation  from  the  Leptogenesis  (Book  of  Jubilees)  may 
refer  only  to  the  parallel  between  the  twenty-two  works  of  creation  and  the 
twenty-two  generations  from  Adam  to  Jacob  (against  Rijnsch,  Buck  cler  Juh. 
(1874),  p.  527  sq. )  As  Josephus  does  not  follow  the  Hebrew  division  or  arrange- 
ment of  the  books,  it  is  not  safe,  when  the  other  authorities  thus  break 
down,  to  assume  that  he  had  Hebrew  authority  for  the  number  twenty-two. 


LECT.  VI  ALEXANDRIAN    JEWS  153 

Law  and  the  liistorical  books  come  first,  the  poetical  and 
didactic  books  follow,  and  the  prophets  stand  at  tlie  end  as 
in  our  English  Bibles.  But  there  is  another  difference. 
MSS.  and  editions  of  the  Septuagint  contain,  interspersed 
through  the  books  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  certain  additional 
writings  which  we  call  Apocrypha.  The  Apocrypha  of  the 
Septuagint  are  not  precisely  identical  with  those  given  in  the 
English  Authorised  Version.  The  apocalyptic  book  called 
Second  (or  Fourth)  Esdras  is  not  extant  in  Greek.  The 
Prayer  of  Manasseh  is  not  in  all  copies  of  the  Septuagint,  but 
is  found  in  the  collection  of  hymns  or  Canticles  which  some 
:\ISS.  append  to  the  Psalms.  All  our  MSS.  of  the  LXX.  are 
of  Christian  origin,  and  these  Canticles  comprise  the  jVIagni- 
iicat  and  other  ^ew  Testament  hymns.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Septuagint  reckons  four  books  of  Maccabees,  while  the 
English  Apocrypha  have  only  two. 

The  additional  books  contained  in  the  Septuagint  may  be 
divided  into  three  classes  : — 

I.  Books  translated  from  the  Hebrew.  Of  these  1  Macca- 
bees and  Ecclesiasticus  w^ere  still  extant  in  Hebrew  in  the  time 
of  Jerome,  and  the  Books  of  Tobit  and  Judith  were  translated 
or  corrected  by  him  from  Aramaic  copies.  Baruch,  in  his 
day,  was  no  longer  current  among  the  Hebrews. 

II.  Books  originally  composed  in  Greek  by  Hellenistic 
Jews,  such  as  the  Second  Book  of  Maccabees,  the  principal 
part  of  which  is  an  epitome  of  a  larger  work  by  Jason  of 
Cyrene,  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  which,  thougli  it  pro- 
fesses to  be  the  work  of  the  Hebrew  monarch,  is  plainly  the 
production  of  an  Alexandrian  Jew  trained  in  the  philosophy 
of  his  time. 

III.  Books  based  on  translations  from  the  canonical 
books,  but  expanded  and  embellished  with  arbitrary  and 
fabulous  additions.  In  the  Greek  Book  of  Esther  the  "  Addi- 
tions "  given  in  the  English  Apocrypha  form  an  integral  part 


154  CANON    OF    THE  lect.  vi 

of  the  text.  Similarly,  the  Septuagint  Daniel  embodies 
Susanna,  the  Song  of  the  Three  Children,  and  Bel  and  the 
Dragon  ;  but  these  are  perhaps  later  additions  to  the  Greek 
version.  1  Esdras  is  based  on  extracts  from  Chronicles,  Ezra, 
and  Neheniiah,  but  treats  the  text  freely,  and  adds  the 
fabulous  history  of  Zerubbabel. 

The  style  of  literature  to  which  this  third  class  of  Apo- 
crypha belongs  was  also  known  in  Palestine;  and  we  still 
possess  many  Eabbinical  books  of  similar  character,  contain- 
ing popular  reproductions  of  the  canonical  books  interwoven 
with  fabulous  additions.  This  kind  of  literature  is  a  branch 
of  the  ]Midrash,  or  treatment  of  the  sacred  books  for  purposes 
of  popular  edification.  It  seems  to  have  had  its  origin  in  the 
Synagogue,  where  the  early  Meturgemans  and  preachers  did 
not  confine  themselves  to  a  faithful  reproduction  of  Bible 
teaching,  but  added  all  manner  of  Haggada,  ethical  and 
fabulous,  according  to  the  taste  of  the  time.  But  in  Pales- 
tine the  Haggadic  Midrash  was  usually  kept  distinct  from 
the  text,  and  handed  down  either  orally  or  in  separate  books. 
In  Alexandria,  on  the  contrary,  the  Jews  seem  to  have  been 
content,  in  certain  instances,  to  receive  books  through  a 
Midrash  instead  of  an  exact  version,  or  to  admit  Midrashic 
additions  to  the  text. 

From  the  fact  that  the  Apocrypha  stand  side  by  side  with 
the  canonical  books  in  the  MSS.  and  editions  of  the  Septua- 
gint, some  have  leaped  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Canon  of 
the  Alexandrian  Jews  contained  all  these  books,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  they  were  recognised  in  Alexandria  as  being 
divine  and  inspired  in  the  same  sense  as  the  Law,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Psalms.  There  are,  however,  several 
reasons  which  should  make  us  hesitate  to  draw  such  an  infer- 
ence. In  the  first  place,  we  observe  that  the  number  of 
Apocryphal  books  is  not  identical  in  all  copies,  and  that  some 
of  the  books  are  found  in  two  recensions  with  very  consider- 


LECT.  VI  ALEXANDRIAN   JEWS  10  5 

;ible  variatioDS  of  form.^  This  in  itself  is  a  strong  reason  for 
doubting  the  existence  of  a  fixed  Alexandrian  Canon.  In 
the  second  place,  all  our  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint  are  of 
Christian  origin.  The  presence  of  an  Apocryphon  in  a  Chris- 
tian MS.  shows  that  it  had  a  certain  measure  of  recognition 
in  the  Church,  but  does  not  prove  that  full  canonical  authority 
was  ascribed  to  it  in  the  Synagogue.  Again,  in  the  third 
place,  tlie  books  must  have  been  current  one  by  one  before 
they  were  collected  into  a  single  volume.  We  learn  from 
the  prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus  and  the  subscription  to  the 
Apocryphal  Book  of  Esther  that  some  of  them  at  least  were 
translated  by  private  enterprise  without  having  any  official 
sanction.  Whatever  position,  then,  they  ultimately  attained, 
they  were  not  translated  as  part  of  an  authoritative  Canon. 
And  finally,  Philo,  the  greatest  of  Jewish  Hellenists,  who 
Nourished  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  knew  the  Apocrypha 
indeed,  for  he  seems  sometimes  to  borrow  the  turn  of  a  phrase 
from  them,  but  he  never  quotes  from  them,  much  less  uses 
them  for  the  proof  of  doctrine  as  he  habitually  uses  most  of 
the  books  in  our  Old  Testament.  There  are,  then,  sufficient 
reasons  for  hesitating  to  believe  that  the  Alexandrian  Jews 
received  all  these  books  as  authoritative,  in  the  same  sense  as 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are 
bound  to  explain  how  such  books  ever  came  to  stand  so 
closely  associated  with  the  canonical  books  as  they  do  in  our 
Greek  copies.  If  the  line  of  demarcation  between  canonical 
and  uncanonical  books  had  been  sharply  fixed,  it  is  hard  to 
see  how  they  could  have  got  into  the  Septuagint  at  all.  And 
how  did  it  come  to  pass  that  certain  of  the  Hagiographa  were 
not  used  in  Alexandria  in  their  canonical  form,  but  only  in 
the  shape  of  Haggadic  reproductions  ?      These  phenomena 

^  Two  Greek  recensions  of  Esther  and  Tobit  exist.  See  for  the  former 
book  Lagarde's  edition  of  the  Septuagint  (Gott.,  1883),  where  the  two  recen- 
sions are  printed  on  opposite  pages,  and  for  Tobit,  Swete's  edition,  where  the 
recension  of  the  Sinaiticus  stands  ^lnder  the  text  of  the  Yaticanus, 


156  CHARACTERISTICS    OF  lect.  vi 

point  to  a  time  when  the  idea  of  canonicity  was  not  yet  fixed, 
and  when  certain  books,  even  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  were  only 
pushing  their  way  gradually  towards  universal  recognition. 
In  Alexandria,  for  example,  the  Book  of  Esther  cannot  have 
been  accepted  as  beyond  dispute  ;  for  instead  of  a  proper 
translation  we  find  only  a  jMidrash,  circulating  in  two  varying 
recensions,  and  not  claiming  by  its  subscription  to  be  more 
than  a  private  book  brought  to  Alexandria  in  the  fourth  year 
of  Ptolemy  and  Cleopatra  by  one  Dositheos,  who  called  him- 
self a  priest. 

These  facts  force  us  to  inquire  upon  what  principles  the 
Jews  separated  the  sacred  writings  from  ordinary  books. 
But,  before  doing  this,  let  me  ask  you  to  look  at  the  Apocrypha 
as  they  appear  to  us  in  the  light  of  history.  All  the  books 
of  the  Apocrypha  are  comparatively  modern.  There  is  none 
of  them,  on  the  most  favourable  computation,  which  can  be 
supposed  to  be  older  than  the  latest  years  of  the  Persian 
empire.  They  belong,  therefore,  to  the  age  when  the  last 
fjreat  reliG:ious  movement  of  the  Old  Testament  under  Ezra 
had  passed  away — when  prophecy  had  died  out,  and  the 
nation  had  settled  down  to  live  under  the  Law,  looking  for 
guidance  in  religion,  not  to  a  continuance  of  new  revelation, 
but  to  the  written  Word,  and  to  the  interpretations  of  the 
Scribes.  To  place  these  books  on  the  same  footing  with  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  is  quite  impossible  to  the  historical 
student.  They  belong  to  a  new  literature  which  rose  in 
Judsea  after  the  cessation  of  prophetic  originality,  when  the 
law  and  the  tradition  were  all  in  all,  when  there  was  no  man 
to  speak  with  authority  truths  that  he  had  received  direct 
from  God,  but  the  whole  intellect  of  Israel  was  either  con- 
centrated on  the  development  of  legal  Halacha,  or,  in  men  of 
more  poetical  imagination,  exercised  itself  in  restating  and 
illustrating  the  old  principles  of  religion  in  ethical  poetry, 
like  that  of  Ecclesiasticus,  or  in  romance  and  fable  of  a  re- 


LECT.  VI  THE    APOCRYPHA  157 

ligious  complexion,  like  the  Books  of  Judith  and  Tobit. 
Halacha,  Midrash,  and  Haggada  became  the  forms  of  all 
literary  effort ;  or  if  any  man  tried  a  bolder  flight,  and  sought 
ibr  his  work  a  place  of  higher  authority,  ho  did  so  by  assum- 
ing the  name  of  some  ancient  worthy.  This  last  class  of 
pseudepigraphic  works,  as  they  are  called,  consists  largely  of 
pseudoproplietic  books  in  apocalyptic  form,  like  2  (4)  Esdras.-^ 
It  is  plain,  then,  on  broad  historical  considerations, 
without  entering  into  any  matters  of  theological  dispute,  as 
to  the  nature  of  inspiration  and  so  forth,  that  there  is  a  dis- 
tinct line  of  demarcation  between  the  Apocrypha  and  the 
books  which  record  the  progress  of  Israel's  religion  during 
the  ages  when  prophets  and  righteous  men  still  looked  for 
their  guidance  in  times  of  religious  need  not  to  a  written  book 
and  its  scholastic  interpreters,  but  to  a  fresh  word  of  revela- 
tion. But  how  far  was  this  understood  by  those  who  separ- 
ated out  the   books  of  our  Hebrew  Bible  as  canonical,  and 


^  The  line  between  the  okl  literature  and  the  new  cannot  be  drawn  with 
chronological  precision.  The  characteristic  mark  of  canonical  literature  is 
that  it  is  the  record  of  the  progress  of  fresh  tiuths  of  revelation,  and  of  the 
immediate  reflection  of  these  truths  in  the  believing  heart.  The  Psalms  are, 
in  part,  considerably  later  than  Ezra,  but  they  record  the  inner  side  of  the 
history  of  his  work  of  reformation,  and  show  us  the  nature  of  the  faith  with 
which  Israel  apprehended  the  Law  and  its  institutes.  This  is  a  necessary 
and  most  precious  element  of  the  Old  Testament  record,  and  it  would  be 
arbitrary  to  attempt  to  fix  a  point  of  time  at  which  this  part  of  Old  Testa- 
ment Scripture  must  necessarily  have  closed.  But  the  direct  language  of 
faith  held  by  the  psalmists  is  intrinsically  different  from,  such  artificial  reflec- 
tion on  the  law,  in  the  manner  of  the  schools,  as  is  found  in  Ecclesiasticus. 
The  difference  can  be  felt  rather  than  defined,  and  a  certain  margin  of  un- 
certainty must  attach  to  every  determination  of  the  limits  of  what  is 
canonical.  But,  on  the  whole,  the  instinct  that  guided  the  formation  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon  was  sound,  because  the  theories  of  the  schools  affected  only 
certain  outlying  books,  while  the  mass  of  the  collection  established  itself  in 
the  hearts  of  all  the  faithful  in  successive  generations,  under  historical  circum- 
stances of  a  sifting  kind.  The  religious  struggle  under  the  Maccabees, 
which  threw  the  people  of  God  upon  the  Scriptures  for  comfort  when  the 
outward  order  of  the  theocracy  was  broken,  doubtless  was  for  the  later  books 
of  the  Canon  a  period  of  proof  such  as  the  Captivity  was  for  the  older 
literature. 


158  JEWISH    VIEW  LECT.  VI 

rejected  all  others  ?  The  Jews  had  a  dim  sort  of  conscious- 
ness after  the  time  of  Ezra  that  the  age  of  revelation  was 
past,  and  that  the  age  of  tradition  had  begun.  The  feeling 
that  new  revelation  had  almost  ceased  is  found  even  in  the 
latest  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  Zechariah  xiii. 
the  prophet  predicts  the  near  approach  of  a  time  when  every 
one  who  calls  himself  a  prophet,  and  puts  on  a  prophet's 
garment,  shall  be  at  once  recognised  as  a  deceiver,  and  his 
own  father  and  mother  shall  be  the  first  to  denounce  the 
imposture.  And,  in  the  last  verse  of  the  prophetic  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  Malachi  does  not  look  forward  to  a  con- 
stant succession  of  prophets,  such  as  is  foretold  in  Deutero- 
nomy. He  sees  no  hope  for  the  corrupt  state  of  his  times, 
except  that  the  old  prophet  Elijah  shall  return  to  bring  back 
the  hearts  of  the  fathers  with  their  children,  and  the  hearts 
of  the  children  with  their  fathers,  lest  God  come  and  smite 
the  earth  with  a  curse.  As  time  rolled  on,  the  feeling  that 
there  was  no  new  revelation  among  the  people  became  still 
more  strong.  In  1  Maccabees  ix.  27  we  read  that  "there 
was  great  sorrow  in  Israel,  such  as  there  had  not  been  since 
the  days  that  prophets  ceased  to  appear  among  them ; "  and, 
according  to  Josephus,  the  strict  succession  of  prophets  ended  in 
the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus.  The  Scribes  thoroughly 
sympathised  with  this  view.  Even  when  they  made  innova- 
tions, they  aUvays  professed  to  do  so  as  mere  interpreters, 
claiming  nothing  more  than  to  restore,  to  expound,  or  to  fence 
in,  the  law  given  by  Moses.  Their  position  is  aptly  described 
in  the  phrase  of  the  New  Testament,  where  Jesus  is  said  to 
teach  "as  one  having  authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes."  But, 
while  the  Jews  had  a  general  feeling  that  the  age  of  revela- 
tion was  past,  they  had  no  such  clear  perception  of  the  reason 
of  the  change  as  we  can  have  in  the  light  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  they  did  not  see,  as  we  can  do,  that  no  further  develop- 
ment  of  spiritual   religion  was   possible  without   breaking 


OF    EEVELATION  159 


through  the  legal  forms  and  national  limitations  of  Judaism ; 
and  they  continued  to  look,  not  for  a  new  revelation  super- 
seding the  old  covenant,  but  for  the  reappearance  of  prophets 
working  in  the  service  of  the  law  and  its  ritual.  In  1  Macca- 
bees iv.  46  they  put  aside  the  stones  of  the  polluted  altar,  not 
knowing  what  to  do  with  them,  but  waiting  till  a  prophet 
shall  arise  in  Israel  to  tell  it ;  and  again  (chap.  xiv.  41),  they 
agree  to  make  Simon  high  priest  until  such  time  as  a  true 
prophet  shall  appear.  The  revival  of  prophecy  was  stiU 
looked  for,  but  the  idea  of  the  function  of  prophecy  was 
narrowed  to  things  of  no  moment.  Malachi  had  looked  for 
a  prophet  to  bring  back  to  God  the  hearts  of  fathers  and 
children  alike  ;  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees  the  true  nature 
of  prophecy  had  been  so  far  forgotten  that  it  was  thought 
that  the  business  of  a  prophet  was  to  tell  what  should  be 
done  with  the  stones  of  a  polluted  altar,  or  which  family  was 
to  hold  the  dignity  of  the  high  priesthood.  Where  the  mean- 
ing of  prophecy  was  so  little  understood,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  a  sporadic  reappearance  of  prophets  was  not  thought 
impossible.  Josephus,  in  a  curious  passage  of  his  Jewish 
War,  says  that  John  Hyrcanus  was  the  only  man  who  united 
in  his  person  the  three  highest  distinctions,  being  at  once 
the  ruler  of  his  nation,  and  high  priest,  and  gifted  with 
prophecy ;  "  for  the  Divinity  so  conversed  with  him  that  he 
was  cognisant  of  all  things  that  were  to  come "  {B.  J.  Bk.  i. 
chap.  ii.  8;  compare  the  similar  expressions  of  John  xi.  51). 
Moreover,  although  the  Scribes  in  general  did  not  consider  that 
they  had  the  spirit  of  revelation,  we  find  the  author  of  Ecclesi- 
asticus  (chap.  xxiv.  31,  32)  claiming  for  his  book  an  almost 
prophetic  authority  :  "  I  will  yet  make  instruction  to  shine 
as  the  morning,  and  will  send  forth  her  light  afar  off.  I  will 
pour  forth  doctrine  as  prophecy,  and  leave  it  unto  eternal 
generations"  (comp.  i.  30,  li.  13  sq?).  The  author  is  fully 
conscious  that  his  whole  wisdom  is  derived  from  the  study  of 


160  JEWISH    VIEW  LECT.  VI 

tlie  law  (xxiv.  30).  He  does  not  pretend  that  he  or  other 
scholars  are  the  vehicles  of  new  truths  of  revelation  (chaps. 
xxxviii.  xxxix.) ;  but  he  is  evidently  not  conscious  that  this 
circumstance  constitutes  an  absolute  difference  between  the 
teaching  which,  by  liis  own  admission,  was  nothing  more  than 
an  enforcement  of  the  principles  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the 
old  creative  prophecy  of  Isaiah  or  Jeremiah.  This  unclear- 
ness  of  view  rested  upon  an  error  which  not  only  was  fatal  to 
the  Jews,  but  has  continued  to  exercise  a  pernicious  influence 
even  on  Christian  theology  down  to  our  own  day.  The  Jews, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  identified  religion  with  the  Law,  and 
the  Law  with  the  words  of  Moses. 

All  revelation  was  held  to  be  comprised  in  the  Torah. 
According  to  the  Son  of  Sirach,  the  sacred  Wisdom,  created 
before  the  world  and  enduring  to  all  eternity,  which  is 
established  in  Sion  and  bears  sway  in  Jerusalem,  the  all- 
sufficient  food  of  man's  spiritual  life,  is  identical  with  the 
book  of  the  Covenant  of  God  most  High,  the  Law  enjoined 
by  Moses  (Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.).  The  secrets  of  this  law  are 
infinite,  and  all  man's  wisdom  is  a  stream  derived  from  this 
unfailing  source.  This  doctrine  of  the  pre -existent  and 
eternal  Law,  comprising  within  itself  the  sum  of  all  wisdom 
and  all  possible  revelation,  runs  through  the  whole  Jewish 
literature.  It  is  brought  out  in  a  very  interesting  way  in  the 
old  Jewish  commentaries  on  Deut.  xxx.  12: — "The  law  is 
not  in  the  heavens."  "Say  not,"  says  the  commentary, 
"another  Moses  shall  arise  and  bring  another  law  from 
heaven :  there  is  no  law  left  in  heaven ; "  that  is,  according 
to  the  position  of  the  Jews,  the  law  of  Moses  contained  the 
whole  revelation  of  God's  goodness  and  grace  which  had  been 
given  or  which  ever  could  be  given.^ 

1  Midrash  Rahba,  p.  529  (Leipzig,  1864).  For  the  law  as  everlasting,  see 
Baruch,  iv.  1.  The  pre-existence  of  the  law  (Ecclus.  xxiv.  9)  follows  from 
its  being  identified  with  wisdom  as  described  in  Prov.  viii.  Compare  further 
Weber,  Altsynagogale  Theolocjie,  p.  18  sq.     The  Rabbinical  theory  of  revela- 


LECT.  VI  OF    KEVELATION  161 

What  place,  then,  was  left  for  the  Prophets,  the  Psalms, 
and  the  other  books  ?  They  were  inspired  and  authoritative 
interpretations  and  applications  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and 
nothing  more.  They  were,  therefore,  simply  the  links  in 
tradition  between  the  time  of  Moses  and  the  time  of  Ezra 
and  the  Scribes.  And  so  clearly  was  this  the  Jewish  notion, 
that  the  same  word — Kabhala,  doctrine  traditionally  received 
— is  applied  indifferently  to  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment except  the  Pentateuch,  and  to  the  oral  tradition  of  the 
Scribes.  The  Pentateuch  alone  is  Mihra,  "  reading,"  or,  as  we 
should  call  it,  "  Scripture."  The  Prophets,  the  Psalms,  and 
the  rest  of  the  old  Testament,  in  common  with  the  oral  tradi- 
tion of  the  Scribes,  are  mere  Kabbala  or  traditional  doctrine. 
From  these  premisses  it  necessarily  follows  that  the  other  books 
are  inferior  to  the  Law.  This  consequence  was  drawn  with  full 
logical  stringency.  The  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  not  written 
on  the  same  roll,  and,  in  accordance  with  a  legal  principle  which 
forbade  a  less  holy  thing  to  be  purchased  with  the  price  of  one 
more  holy,  the  Mishna  directs  that  a  copy  of  the  other  books 
may  no  more  be  bought  with  the  price  of  a  Pentateuch  than 
part  of  a  street  may  be  bought  with  the  price  of  a  synagogue.-^ 

I  need  not  interrupt  the  argument  to  prove  at  length  that 
this  is  a  view  which  cannot  be  received  by  any  Christian.  It 
was  refuted,  once  for  all,  by  the  apostle  Paul  when  he  pointed 
out,  in  answer  to  the  Pharisees  of  his  time,  that  the  permanent 
value  of  all  revelation  lies,  not  in  Law,  but  in  Gospel.  Now, 
it  is  certain  that  the  prophetical  books  are  far  richer  than  the 

tion  has  exercised  an  influence  on  history  far  beyond  tlie  limits  of  the  Jewish 
community  through  its  adojjtion  in  Islam. 

^  On  the  term  Kabhala  see  Zunz,  Gottesdienstliche  Vorircige,  p.  44,  -where 
the  evidence  from  Jewish  authorities  is  carefully  collected.  Compare  Weber, 
op.  cit.  p.  79  sq.  Mishna,  Megilla,  iii.  1  :  "If  the  men  of  a  town  sell  a 
Torah  they  may  not  buy  with  its  price  the  other  books  of  Scripture  ;  if  they 
sell  Scriptures  they  may  not  buy  a  cloth  to  wrap  round  the  Torah  ;  if  they 
sell  such  a  cloth  they  may  not  buy  an  ark  for  synagogue  rolls  ;  if  they  sell  an 
ark  they  may  not  buy  a  synagogue  ;  nor  if  they  sell  a  synagogue  may  they 
buy  a  street "  (an  open  ground  for  devotion  ;  cp.  ^Matt.  vi.  5). 

II 


162  CONSTITUTION    OF  lect.  vi 

Law  in  evangelical  elements.  They  contain  a  much  fuller 
declaration  of  those  spiritual  truths  which  constitute  the  per- 
manent value  of  the  Old  Testament  Eevelation,  and  a  much 
clearer  adumbration  of  the  New  and  Spiritual  Covenant  under 
which  we  now  live.  There  is  more  of  Christ  in  the  Prophets 
and  the  Psalms  than  in  the  Pentateuch,  with  its  legal  ordin- 
ances and  temporary  precepts  adapted  to  the  hardness  of  the 
people's  hearts  ;  and  therefore  no  Christian  can  for  a  moment 
consent  to  accept  that  view  of  the  pre-eminence  of  the  Law 
which  was  to  the  Jews  the  foundation  of  their  official  doctrine 
of  the  Canon.  What,  then,  is  the  inference  from  these  facts  ? 
We  found,  in  Lecture  IL,  that  the  early  Protestants,  for  reasons 
very  intelligible  at  their  time,  were  content  simply  to  accept 
the  Canon  as  it  came  to  them  through  the  hands  of  the  Jews. 
But  it  appears  that,  in  defining  the  number  and  limits  of  the 
sacred  books,  the  Jewish  doctors  started  with  a  false  idea  of 
the  test  and  measure  of  sacredness.  Their  tradition,  therefore, 
does  not  conclusively  determine  the  question  of  the  Canon  ; 
and  we  cannot  permanently  acquiesce  in  it  without  subjecting 
their  conclusions  to  a  fresh  examination  by  sounder  tests. 

Before  we  proceed  to  examine  in  detail  the  definitions  of 
the  Eabbins  on  this  matter,  let  me  say  at  once  that  the  part 
played  by  the  Scribes  and  their  erroneous  theories  in  deter- 
mining the  compass  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  was  after  all 
very  limited.  A  Canon,  deliberately  framed  on  the  principles 
of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  could  hardly  have  been  satis- 
factory ;  but  in  reality  the  essential  elements  in  the  Canon 
were  not  determined  by  official  authority.  The  mass  of  the 
Old  Testament  books  gained  their  canonical  position  because 
they  commended  themselves  in  practice  to  the  experience  of 
the  Old  Testament  Church  and  the  spiritual  discernment  of 
the  godly  in  Israel.  For  the  religious  life  of  Israel  was  truer 
than  the  teaching  of  the  Pharisees.  The  Old  Testament  reli- 
gion was  the  religion  of  revelation ;  and  the  highest  spiritual 


LECT.vi  THE   JEWISH    CANON  163 

truths  then  known  did  not  dwell  in  the  Jewish  people  with- 
out producing,  in  practical  life,  a  higher  type  of  religious 
experience,  and  a  truer  insight  into  spiritual  things,  than  was 
embodied  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Scribes.  When  the  Jewish 
doctors  first  concerned  themselves  with  the  preparation  of  an 
authoritative  list  of  sacred  books,  most  of  the  Old  Testament 
books  had  already  established  themselves  in  the  hearts  of  the 
faithful  with  an  authority  that  could  neither  be  shaken  nor 
confirmed  by  the  decisions  of  the  schools.  The  controversy 
as  to  the  limits  of  the  Canon  was  confined  to  a  few  outlying 
books  which,  by  reason  of  their  contents  or  of  their  history, 
were  less  universally  read  and  valued  than  the  Prophets  and 
the  Psalms.  In  the  ultimate  decision  as  to  the  canonicity  of 
these  books  the  authority  and  theories  of  the  Scribes  played 
an  important  part ;  but  for  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament  the 
Scribes  did  nothing  more  than  accept  established  facts,  bringing 
them  into  conformity  wdth  their  theories  by  hypotheses  as  to  the 
prophetic  authorship  of  anonymous  books  and  other  arbitrary 
assumptions  of  which  we  shall  find  examples  as  we  proceed. 

In  looking  more  narrowly  at  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish 
Canon  we  may  begin  by  recurring  to  the  account  of  the  matter 
given  by  Josephus  towards  the  close  of  the  first  century.  There 
is  little  doubt  that  the  twenty-two  books  of  Josephus  are  those 
of  our  present  Hebrew  Canon  ;  but  the  force  of  this  evidence 
is  disguised  by  the  controversial  purpose  of  the  writer,  which 
leads  him  to  put  his  facts  in  a  false  light.  The  aim  of  Jose- 
phus in  his  work  against  Apion  is  to  vindicate  the  antiquity 
of  the  Hebrew  nation,  and  the  credibility  of  its  history  as 
recorded  in  his  own  Avcliceology.  In  this  connection  he 
maintains  that  the  Oriental  nations  kept  official  annals  long 
before  the  Greeks,  and  that  the  Jews  in  particular  charged 
their  chief  priests  and  prophets  with  the  duty  of  preserving 
a  regular  record  of  contemporary  affairs,  not  permitting  any 
private  person  to  meddle  in  the  matter.     This  official  record 


164  THE    CANON 


is  contained  in  the  twenty-two  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  older  history,  communicated  by  revelation,  is  found  in  the 
Pentateuch  along  with  the  legal  code.  The  other  books,  with 
the  exception  of  four  containing  hymns  and  precepts  of  life, 
which  may  be  identified  w^ith  the  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesi- 
astes,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  are  made  to  figure  as  a 
continuous  history  written  by  an  unbroken  succession  ot 
prophets,  each  of  whom  recorded  the  events  of  his  own  time, 
down  to  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  when  the  suc- 
cession of  prophets  failed,  and  the  sacred  annals  stopped  short.^ 
As  Josephus  places  Ezra  and  ISTehemiah  under  Xerxes,  and 
identifies  his  son  Artaxerxes  with  the  Ahasuerus  of  Esther, 
he  no  doubt  views  Esther  as  the  latest  canonical  book.  The 
number  of  thirteen  prophetico-historical  books  from  Joshua 
to  Esther  is  made  up  by  reckoning  Job  as  a  history,  and  con- 
joining Euth  with  Judges  and  Lamentations  with  Jeremiah,  in 
the  manner  mentioned  by  Jerome.  As  the  Song  of  Solomon 
figures  as  a  didactic  book,  it  must  have  been  taken  allegorically.^ 
According  to  Josephus,  the  close  of  the  Canon  is  distinctly 

^  Josephus,  Contra  Apion.  lib.  I.  cap.  vii.  sq.  (§§  37-41,  Niese  ;  cp.  Eus. 
H.  E.  iii.  10). — "Not  every  one  was  permitted  to  ^Yrite  the  national  records, 
nor  is  there  any  discrepancy  in  the  things  written  ;  but  the  prophets  alone 
learned  the  earliest  and  most  ancient  events  by  inspiration  from  God,  and 
wrote  down  the  events  of  their  own  times  plainly  as  they  occurred.  And  so 
we  have  not  myriads  of  discordant  and  contradictory  books,  but  only  two-and- 
twenty,  containing  the  record  of  all  time,  and  rightly  believed  in  [as  divine  : 
Eus.'\.  And  of  these  five  are  the  books  of  Moses,  comprising  the  laws,  and 
the  tradition  from  the  creation  of  mankind  down  to  his  deatli.  But  from  the 
death  of  Moses  till  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  king  of  Persia,  who  succeeded 
Xerxes,  the  prophets  that  followed  Moses  compiled  the  history  of  their 
own  times  in  thirteen  books.  The  other  four  contain  hymns  to  God  and 
precepts  of  life  for  men.  But  from  Artaxerxes  to  our  times  all  events 
have  indeed  been  written  down  ;  but  these  later  books  are  not  deemed 
worthy  of  the  same  credit,  because  the  exact  succession  of  prophets  was 
wanting." 

2  The  allegorical  interpretation  of  Canticles,  Israel  being  identified  with  the 
spouse,  first  appears  in  2  (4)  Esdras,  v.  24,  26  ;  vii.  26,  and  may  very  well 
have  been  known  to  Josephus.  It  is,  however,  right  to  say  that  some 
scholars  doubt  whether  Ecclesiastes  and  Canticles  were  included  in  the  Canon 
of  Josephus.     So  still  Lagarde,  Mitthcilungen,  iv.  (1891),  p.  34.5. 


OF   JOSEPHUS  165 


marked  by  the  cessation  of  the  succession  of  prophets  in  the 
time  of  Artaxerxes.  On  this  view  there  never  was  or  could 
be  any  discussion  as  to  the  number  and  limits  of  the  canonical 
collection,  which  had  from  first  to  last  an  official  character. 
Each  new  book  was  written  by  a  man  of  acknowledged 
authority,  and  was  added  to  the  collection  precisely  as  a 
new  page  would  be  added  to  the  royal  annals  of  an  Eastern 
kingdom.  It  is  plain  that  this  view  is  not  in  accordance  with 
facts.  The  older  prophets  were  not  official  historiographers 
working  in  harmony  with  the  priests  for  the  regular  con- 
tinuance of  a  series  of  Temple  annals ;  they  were  often  in 
opposition  to  the  sacred  as  well  as  the  civil  authorities  of 
their  nation.  Jeremiah,  for  example,  was  persecuted  and  put 
in  the  stocks  by  Pashur  the  son  of  Immer,  priest  and  chief 
governor  of  the  Temple.  Again,  it  is  clear  that  there  was  no 
regular  and  unbroken  series  of  sacred  annals  officially  kept  up 
from  the  time  of  Moses  onwards.  In  the  time  of  Josiah,  the 
Law,  unexpectedly  found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  appears  as 
a  thing  that  had  been  lost  and  long  forgotten.  Even  a  glance 
at  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  is  enough  to  refute  the 
idea  of  a  regular  succession  of  prophetic  writers,  each  taking 
up  the  history  just  where  the  last  had  left  it.  In  fact, 
Josephus  in  this  statement  simply  gives  a  turn,  for  his  own 
polemical  purposes,  to  that  theory  of  tradition  which  was 
current  among  the  Pharisees  of  his  time  and  is  clearly  ex- 
pressed at  the  beginning  of  the  treatise  of  the  Mishna  called 
PirTci  Ahoth.  In  it  we  read  that  "  Moses  received  the  Torah 
from  Sinai  and  delivered  it  to  Joshua,  Joshua  delivered  it  to 
the  elders,  the  elders  to  the  prophets,  and  the  prophets  to  the 
men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,"  from  whom  it  passed  in  turn  to 
the  Zugoth,  as  the  Hebrews  called  them, — that  is,  the  pairs  of 
great  doctors  who,  in  successive  generations,  formed  the  heads 
of  the  Scribes.  This  whole  doctrine  of  the  succession  of 
tradition  is  a  dogmatical  theory,  not  an  historical  fact ;  and 


166  HOMOLOGUMENA 


in  like  manner  Joseplms's  account  of  the  Canon  is  a  theory, 
and  a  theory  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  we  find  no  com- 
plete formal  catalogue  of  Scriptures  in  earlier  writers  like  the 
son  of  Sirach,  who,  enumerating  the  literary  worthies  of  his 
nation,  had  every  motive  to  give  a  complete  list,  if  he  had 
been  in  a  position  to  do  so ;  inconsistent  also  with  the  fact 
that  questions  as  to  the  canonicity  of  certain  books  were  still 
undecided  within  the  lifetime  of  Josephus  himself. 

But  the  clearest  evidence  that  the  notion  of  canonicity 
was  not  fully  established  till  long  after  the  time  of  Arta- 
xerxes  lies  in  the  Septuagint.  The  facts  that  have  come 
before  us  are  not  to  be  explained  by  saying  that  there  was 
one  fixed  Canon  in  Palestine  and  another  in  Alexandria. 
That  would  imply  such  a  schism  between  the  Hellenistic 
and  Palestinian  Jews,  between  the  Jews  who  spoke  Greek 
and  those  who  read  Hebrew,  as  certainly  did  not  exist,  and 
would  assign  to  the  Apocrypha  an  authority  among  the 
former  which  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  they  ever 
possessed.  The  true  inference  from  the  fact  is,  that  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  of  gradual  formation,  that 
some  books  now  accepted  had  long  a  doubtful  position,  while 
others  were  for  a  time  admitted  to  a  measure  of  reputation 
which  made  the  line  of  demarcation  between  them  and  the 
canonical  books  uncertain  and  fluctuating.  In  short,  we 
must  suppose  a  time  when  the  Old  Testament  Canon  was 
passing  through  the  same  kind  of  history  through  which  we 
know  the  New  Testament  Canon  to  have  passed.  In  the 
early  ages  of  the  Christian  Church  we  find  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  divided  into  the  so-called  Homologumena,  or 
books  universally  acknowledged,  and  the  Antilegomena,  or 
books  acknowledged  in  some  parts  of  the  Church  but  spoken 
against  in  others.  The  Homologumena  included  those  books 
which,  either  from  their  very  nature  or  from  their  early  and 
wide  circulation,  never  could  be  questioned — books  of  ad- 


LECT.  VI  AND    ANTILEGOMENA  167 

mitted  and  undoubted  apostolic  authority,  sucli  as  the 
Gospels  and  the  great  Epistles  of  Paul.  The  Antilegomcna 
consisted  of  other  books,  some  of  which  are  now  in  our  New 
Testament,  but  which  for  some  reason  were  not  from  the 
first  broadly  circulated  over  the  whole  Church.  Along  with 
these,  there  were  other  books,  not  now  held  canonical,  which 
in  some  parts  of  the  Church  were  read  in  public  worship, 
and  received  a  certain  amount  of  reverence.  The  history  of 
the  Canon  unfolds  the  gradual  process  by  which  the  number 
of  AntUcgomena  was  narrowed;  either  by  the  Church, 
through  all  its  length  and  breadth,  coming  to  be  persuaded 
that  some  book  not  at  first  undisputed  was  yet  worthy  to 
be  universally  received  as  apostolic,  or,  conversely,  by  the 
spread  of  the  conviction  that  other  books,  which  for  a  time 
had  been  used  in  certain  churches,  were  not  fit  to  be  put  on 
a  level  with  the  Gospels  and  the  great  Epistles.  We  must 
suppose  that  a  similar  process  took  place  with  regard  to  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  About  many  of  them  there 
could  be  no  dispute.  Others  were  Antilegomena  —  books 
spoken  against  —  and  the  number  of  such  Antilegomena, 
which  were  neither  fully  acknowledged  nor  absolutely  re- 
jected, was  naturally  a  fluctuating  quantity  up  to  a  com- 
paratively late  date,  when  such  a  measure  of  practical 
agreement  had  been  reached  as  to  which  books  were  really 
of  sacred  authority,  that  the  theological  heads  of  the  nation 
could,  without  difficulty,  cut  short  further  discussion,  and 
establish  an  authoritative  list  of  Scriptures.  The  reason 
why  a  greater  number  of  books  of  disputed  position  is 
preserved  in  Greek  than  in  Hebrew  is  that  the  Eabbins 
of  Palestine,  from  the  close  of  the  first  century,  when  the 
Canon  was  definitely  fixed,  sedulously  suppressed  all  Apo- 
crypha, and  made  it  a  sin  to  read  them. 

This  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Canon  is  natural  in  itself 
and  agrees  with  all  the  facts,  especially  with  the  circumstance 


168  EZRA    AND    THE    CANON  lect.  vr 

that  the  canouicity  of  certain  books  was  a  moot-point  among 
Jewish  theologians  till  after  the  fall  of  the  Temple.  This 
fact  gave  no  trouble  to  the  Jews,  who  accepted  the  decision 
of  R  Akiba  and  his  compeers  as  of  undisputed  authority. 
But  Christian  theology  could  not  give  weight  to  Eabbinical 
tradition,  and  it  is  thus  very  natural  that  many  attempts 
have  been  made  to  prove  that  an  authoritative  Canon  was 
fixed  in  the  days  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  while  the  last 
prophets  still  lived. 

Among  the  ancient  fathers  it  was  a  current  opinion  that 
Ezra  himself  rewrote  by  inspiration  the  whole  Old  Testament, 
which  had  been  destroyed  or  injured  at  the  time  of  the 
Captivity.  The  source  of  this  opinion  is  a  fable  in  2  (4) 
Esdras  xiv.  Esdras,  according  to  this  story,  prayed  for  the 
Holy  Spirit  that  he  might  rewrite  the  law  that  had  been 
burned.  His  prayer  was  granted;  and,  retiring  for  forty 
days,  with  five  scribes  to  write  to  his  dictation,  he  produced 
ninety-four  (?)  books.  "  And  when  the  forty  days  were  com- 
pleted, the  Most  High  spake,  saying.  Publish  the  first  books 
which  thou  hast  written,  that  the  worthy  and  the  unworthy 
may  read  them;  but  conserve  the  last  seventy,  and  deliver 
them  to  the  wise  men  of  thy  people."  To  understand  what 
this  means,  we  must  remember  that  this  Book  of  Esdras  pro- 
fesses to  be  a  genuine  prophecy  of  Ezra  the  scribe.  The 
author  was  aware  that  when  he  produced  his  book,  which 
was  not  written  till  near  the  close  of  the  first  Christian 
century,  it  would  be  necessary  to  meet  the  objection  that  it 
had  never  been  known  before.  Accordingly  he  and  other 
forgers  of  the  same  period  fell  back  on  the  assertion  that 
certain  of  the  sacred  writings  had  always  been  esoteric  books, 
confined  to  a  privileged  circle.  The  whole  fable  is  directed 
to  this  end,  and  is  plainly  unworthy  of  the  slightest  attention. 
We  have  no  right  to  rationalise  it,  as  some  have  done,  and 
read  it  as  a  testimony  that  Ezra  may  at  least  have  collected 


I 


LECT.  VI  THE    GREAT    SYNAGOGUE  169 

and  edited  the  Old  Testament.  But  no  doubt  the  currency 
which  Fourth  Esdras  long  enjoyed  helped  to  fix  the  im- 
pression on  men's  minds  that  in  some  shape  Ezra  had  a  part 
in  settling  the  Canon,  and  drove  them  to  seek  arguments  for 
this  view  in  other  quarters. 

Accordingly  we  find  that  a  new  form  of  the  theory  started 
up  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  gained  almost  undisputed 
currency  in  the  Protestant  Churches.  According  to  this  view, 
the  Canon  was  completed  by  a  body  of  men  known  as  the 
Great  Synagogue.  The  Great  Synagogue  plays  a  considerable 
part  in  Jewish  tradition ;  it  is  represented  as  a  permanent 
council,  under  the  presidency  of  Ezra,  wielding  supreme 
authority  over  tlie  Jewish  nation  ;  and  a  variety  of  functions 
are  ascribed  to  it.  But  the  tradition  never  said  that  the 
Great  Synagogue  fixed  the  Canon.  That  opinion,  current  as 
it  once  was,  is  a  mere  conjecture  of  Elias  Levita,  a  Jewish 
scholar  contemporary  with  Luther.  Not  only  so,  but  we 
now  know  that  the  whole  idea  that  there  ever  was  a  body 
called  the  Great  Synagogue  holding  rule  in  the  Jewish 
nation  is  pure  fiction.  It  has  been  proved  in  the  clearest 
manner  that  the  origin  of  the  legend  of  the  Great  Synagogue 
lies  in  the  account  given  in  Neh.  viii.-x.  of  the  great  convoca- 
tion which  met  at  Jerusalem  and  subscribed  the  covenant 
to  observe  the  law.  It  was  therefore  a  meeting,  and  not  a 
permanent  authority.  It  met  once  for  all,  and  everything 
that  is  told  about  it,  except  what  we  read  in  Nehemiah,  is 
pure  fable  of  the  later  Jews.-^ 

^  On  the  legend  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  Kuenen's  essay  Ove7'  de  Maniun 
dcr  Ch-oote  Synagoge,  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Amsterdam, 
1876,  is  conclusive.  An  abstract  of  the  results  in  Wellhausen-Bleek,  §  274. 
Kuenen  follows  the  arguments  of  scholars  of  last  century,  and  especially 
Rau's  Diatribe  de  Synagoga  Magna  (Utrecht,  1725)  ;  but  he  completes  their 
refutation  of  the  Rabbinical  fables  by  utilising  and  placing  in  its  true  light 
the  important  observations  of  Krochmal,  as  to  the  connection  between  the 
Great  Synagogue  and  the  Convocation  of  Neh.  viii.-x.,  which,  in  the  hands 
of  Jewish  scholars,  had  only  led  to  fresh  confusion.  See,  for  example,  Graetz 
{Kohelet,  Anh.  i.  Lei^jzig,  1871)  for  a  model  of  confused  reasoning  on  the  Great 


170  NEHEMIAH 


Two,  then,  of  the  traditions  which  seem  to  refer  the  whole 

Canon  to  Ezra  and  his  time  break  down ;  but  a  third,  found 

in  2  Maccabees,  has  received  more  attention  in  recent  times, 

and  has  frequently  been  supposed,  even  by  cautious  scholars, 

to  indicate  at  least  the  first  steps  towards  the  collection  of 

the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa  : — 

"  2  Mac.  ii.  13. — The  same  things  [according  to  another  reading,  these 
things]  were  related  in  the  records,  and  in  the  memoirs  of  Nehemiah, 
and  how,  founding  a  library,  he  collected  the  [writings]  about  the  kings 
and  prophets,  and  the  [writings]  of  David,  and  letters  of  kings  concern- 
ing sacred  offerings.  (14.)  In  like  manner  Judas  collected  all  the  books 
that  had  been  scattered  in  consequence  of  the  w^ar  that  came  on  us,  and 
we  have  them  by  us  ;  of  which  if  ye  have  need,  send  men  to  fetch 
them." 

This  passage  stands  in  a  spurious  epistle,  professedly 
addressed  to  the  Jews  in  Alexandria  by  the  Palestinian 
Jews.  The  epistle  is  full  of  fabulous  details,  which  claim  to 
be  taken  from  written  sources.  If  this  claim  is  not  pure 
fiction,  the  sources  must  have  been  apocryphal.  The 
Memoirs  of  ISTehemiah,  to  which  our  passage  appeals,  are 
one  of  these  worthless  sources,  containing,  as  we  are  expressly 

Synagogue  and  the  Canon.  Krochmal's  discovery  that  the  Great  Synagogue 
and  the  Great  Convocation  are  identical  rests  on  the  clearest  evidence.  See 
especially  the  Midrash  to  Eiith.  "What  did  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 
do  ?  They  wrote  a  book  and  spread  it  out  in  the  court  of  the  temple.  And 
at  dawn  of  day  they  rose  and  found  it  sealed.  This  is  what  is  -written  in 
Neh.  ix.  38  "  (Leipzig  ed.  of  1865,  p.  77).  According  to  the  tradition  of  the 
Talmud,  Bdhd  Bdthra,  id  supra,  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  wrote 
Ezekiel,  the  Minor  Prophets,  Daniel,  and  Esther  ;  and  Ezra  -wrote  his  own 
book  and  part  of  the  genealogies  of  Chronicles.  This  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  Canon  ;  it  merely  expresses  an  opinion  as  to  the  date  of  these  books. 
Further,  the  Ahoth  of  Rabbi  Nathan  (a  post-Talmudic  book)  says  that  the 
Great  Synagogue  arose  and  explained  Proverbs,  Canticles,  and  Ecclesiastes, 
which  had  previously  been  thought  apocryphal.  Such  is  the  traditional  basis 
for  the  famous  conjecture  of  Elias  Levita  in  his  Massoreth  hammassoreth 
(Venice,  1538),  which  took  such  a  hold  of  public  opinion  that  Hottinger,  in 
the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  could  say  :  ' '  Hitherto  it  has  been  an 
unquestioned  axiom  among  the  Jews  and  Christians  alike,  that  the  Canon  of 
the  Old  Testament  was  fixed,  once  and  for  all,  with  Divine  authority,  by 
Ezra  and  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue"  {Thes.  Phil.,  Zurich,  1649, 
p.  112).  At  p.  110  he  says  that  this  is  only  doubted  by  those  quibus  pro 
cerebro  fungus  est. 


LECT.  Yi  AND    THE    CANON  171 

told,  the  same  fables,  and  therefore  altogether  unworthy  of 
credence.  But,  in  fact,  the  transparent  object  of  the  passage 
is  to  palm  off  upon  the  reader  a  whole  collection  of  forgeries, 
by  making  out  that  the  author  and  his  friends  in  Palestine 
possess,  and  are  willing  to  communicate,  a  number  of  valuable 
and  sacred  books  not  known  in  Egypt.  Literary  forgery  had 
an  incredible  attraction  for  a  certain  class  of  wTiters  in  those 
ages.  It  was  practised  by  the  Hellenistic  Jews  as  a  regular 
trade,  and  it  is  in  the  interests  of  this  fraudulent  business 
that  our  author  introduces  the  story  about  Nehemiah  and  his 
library.  Even  if  Nehemiah  did  collect  a  library,  which  is 
likely  enough,  as  he  could  not  but  desire  to  possess  the  books 
of  the  ancient  prophets,  that  after  all  was  a  very  different 
thing  from  forming  an  authoritative  Canon. 

Scholars  have  sometimes  been  so  busy  trying  to  gather  a 
grain  of  truth  out  of  these  fabulous  traditions,  that  they  have 
forgotten  to  open  their  eyes  and  simply  look  at  the  Bible 
itself  for  a  plain  and  categorical  account  of  what  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  actually  did  for  the  Canon  of  Scripture.  From 
Neh.  viii.-x.  we  learn  that  Ezra  did  establish  a  Canon,  that 
is,  that  he  did  lead  his  people  to  accept  a  written  and  sacred 
code  as  the  absolute  rule  of  faith  and  life  ;  but  the  Canon  of 
Ezra  was  the  Pentateuch.  The  people  entered  into  a  cove- 
nant to  keep  the  Law  of  Moses,  which  Ezra  brought  with 
him  from  Babylon  (Ezra  vii.  14).  That  was  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Pentateuch  as  the  canonical  and  authoritative 
book  of  the  Jews,  and  that  is  the  position  which  it  holds 
ever  afterwards.  So  we  have  seen  that  to  the  author  of 
Ecclesiasticus  the  Pentateuch,  and  no  larger  Canon,  is  the 
book  of  the  Covenant  of  God  most  high,  and  the  source  of  all 
sacred  wisdom  ;  while,  to  all  Jewish  theology,  the  Pentateuch 
stands  higher  than  the  other  books  in  sanctity,  and  is  viewed 
as  containing  within  itself  the  whole  compass  of  possible 
revelation.     In  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word  the  Torah  is 


172  CANONICAL  AUTHORITY  lect.  vi 

not  merely  the  Canon  of  Ezra,  but  remained  the  Canon  of 
the  Jews  ever  after,  all  other  books  being  tested  by  their 
conformity  with  its  contents. 

That  does  not  mean  that  the  Divine  authority  of  the 
Prophets  was  not  recognised  at  the  time  of  Ezra.  Un- 
doubtedly it  was  recognised,  but  it  was  not  felt  to  be 
necessary  to  collect  the  prophetic  books  into  one  authori- 
tative volume  with  the  Law.  Indeed,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
could  not  have  undertaken  to  make  a  fixed  and  closed 
collection  of  the  Prophets,  unless  they  had  known  that  no 
other  prophets  were  to  rise  after  their  time ;  and  we  have 
no  reason  to  believe  that  they  had  such  knowledge,  which 
could  only  have  come  to  them  by  special  revelation.  The 
other  sacred  books,  after  the  time  of  Ezra,  continued  to  be 
read  and  to  stand  each  on  its  own  authority,  just  as  the 
books  of  the  apostles  did  in  the  times  of  early  Christianity. 
To  us  this  may  seem  highly  inconvenient.  We  are  accus- 
tomed to  regard  the  Bible  as  one  book,  and  it  seems  to  us 
an  awkward  thing  that  there  should  not  have  been  a  fixed 
volume  comprising  all  sacred  writings.  The  Jews,  I  appre- 
hend, could  not  share  these  feelings.  The  use  of  a  fixed 
Canon  is  either  for  the  convenience  of  private  reading,  or 
for  the  limitation  of  public  ecclesiastical  lessons,  or  for  the 
determination  of  appeals  in  matter  of  doctrine.  And  in  none 
of  these  points  did  the  Jews  stand  on  the  same  ground  with 
us.  In  these  days  the  Bible  was  not  a  book,  but  a  whole 
library.  The  Law  was  not  written  on  the  same  skins  as  the 
Prophets,  and  each  prophetical  book,  as  we  learn  from  Luke 
iv.  17,  might  form  a  volume  by  itself.  In  one  passage  of  the 
Talmud,  a  volume  containing  all  the  Prophets  is  mentioned 
as  a  singularity.  Very  few  persons,  it  may  be  presumed, 
could  possess  all  the  Biblical  books,  or  even  dream  of  having 
them  in  a  collected  form.^ 

^  In  the  Talmudic  times  it  was  matter  of  controversy  whether  it  was 


LECT.  VI  OF   THE   PENTATEUCH  173 

Then,  again,  no  part  of  the  canonical  books,  except  the 
Pentateuch,  was  systematically  read  through  in  the  Syna- 
gogue. The  Pentateuch  was  read  through  every  three  years. 
Lessons  from  the  prophetical  books  were  added  at  an  early 
date,  but  up  to  the  time  of  the  Mishna  this  was  not  done  on 
a  fixed  system,  while  the  Hagiographa  had  no  place  in  the 
Synagogue  lessons  until  a  comparatively  late  period,  when 
the  Book  of  Esther,  and  still  later  the  other  four  Megilloth, 
came  to  be  used  on  certain  annual  occasions.^  And,  finally, 
in  matters  of  doctrine,  the  appeal  to  the  Prophets  or  Hagio- 
grapha was  not  sharply  distinguished  from  appeal  to  the  oral 
law.  Both  alike  were  parts  of  the  Kahhala,  the  traditional 
and  authoritative  interpretation  of  the  Pentateuch,  which 
stood  as  the  supreme  standard  above  both. 

It  is  true  that  the  whole  doctrine  of  oral  tradition  arose 
gradually  and  after  the  time  of  Ezra.  But  the  one-sided 
legalism  on  which  it  rests  could  never  have  been  developed 
if  the  books  of  the  prophets  had  been  officially  recognised, 
from  the  time  of  Ezra  downwards,  as  a  part  of  public 
revelation,  co-ordinate  and  equally  fundamental  with  the  law 

legitimate  to  write  tlie  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa  in  a  single 
book.  Some  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  each  book  of  Scripture  must  form  a 
separate  volume.  See  SCpheririi,  iii.  1,  and  Miiller's  note.  It  appears  that 
the  old  and  predominant  custom  was  in  favour  of  separation.  Boethos, 
whose  copy  of  the  eight  prophets  in  one  volume  is  referred  to  in  Bdbd  Bdthra 
and  SSphertyn,  iii.  5,  lived  about  the  close  of  the  second  Christian  century. 
Some  doctors  denied  that  his  copy  contained  all  the  books  "joined  into  one." 
Sdpherim,  iii.  6,  allows  all  the  books  to  be  united  in  inferior  copies  written 
on  the  material  called  diphthera,  but  not  in  synagogue  rolls  ;  a  compromise 
pointing  to  the  gradual  introduction  in  post-Talmudic  times  of  the  plan  of 
treating  the  Bible  as  one  volume. 

^  For  the  want  of  system  in  the  public  lessons  from  the  Prophets  in  early 
times,  see  Luke  iv.  17,  and  supra,  p.  36,  note  2.  According  to  SOjjhertm,  xiv. 
18,  Esther  was  read  at  the  feast  of  Purim,  Canticles  at  the  Passover,  Ruth  at 
Pentecost.  The  reading  of  Lamentations  is  mentioned,  ibid,  xviii.  4.  It  is 
noteworthy  that  there  is  still  no  mention  of  the  use  of  Ecclesiastes  in  the 
Synagogue.  Compare  further  Zunz,  o^;.  cit.  p.  6.  The  Jews  of  Nehardea  in 
Babylonia  used  to  read  lessons  from  the  Hagiographa  in  the  Sabbath  afternoon 
service.  £.  Shabbath,  f.  116  6. 


174  THE    PROPHETS 


of  Moses.  The  Prophets,  in  truth,  with  the  other  remains  of 
the  old  sacred  literature,  were  mainly  regarded  as  books  of 
private  edification.  While  the  Law  was  directly  addressed 
to  all  Israel  in  all  ages,  the  other  sacred  writings  had  a 
private  origin,  or  were  addressed  to  special  necessities.  Up 
to  the  time  of  the  Exile,  the  godly  of  Israel  looked  for 
guidance  to  the  living  prophetic  word  in  their  midst,  and  the 
study  of  written  prophecies  or  histories,  which,  according  to 
many  indications,  was  largely  practised  in  the  circles  where 
the  living  prophets  had  most  influence,  was  rather  a  supple- 
ment to  the  spoken  word  than  a  substitute  for  it.  But  in 
the  time  of  the  Exile,  when  the  national  existence  with 
which  the  ancient  religion  of  Israel  was  so  closely  inter- 
twined was  hopelessly  shattered,  when  the  voice  of  the 
prophets  was  stilled,  and  the  public  services  of  the  sanctuary 
no  longer  called  the  devout  together,  the  whole  continuance 
of  the  spiritual  faith  rested  upon  the  remembrance  that  the 
prophets  of  the  Lord  had  foreseen  the  catastrophe,  and  had 
shown  how  to  reconcile  it  with  undiminished  trust  in 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel.  The  written  word  acquired  a 
fresh  significance  for  the  religious  life,  and  the  books  of  the 
prophets,  with  those  records  of  the  ancient  history  which 
were  either  already  framed  in  the  mould  of  prophetic  thought, 
or  were  cast  in  that  mould  by  editors  of  the  time  of  the 
Exile,  became  the  main  support  of  the  faithful,  who  felt,  as 
they  had  never  felt  before,  that  the  words  of  Jehovah  were 
pure  words,  silver  sevenfold  tried,  a  sure  treasure  in  every 
time  of  need. 

The  frequent  allusions  to  the  earlier  prophets  in  the 
writings  of  Zechariah  show  how  deep  a  hold  their  words 
had  taken  of  the  hearts  of  the  godly  in  Israel ;  but  the  very 
profundity  of  this  influence,  belonging  as  it  did  to  the  sphere 
of  personal  religion  rather  than  the  public  order  of  the 
theocracy,  made  it  less  necessary  to  stamp  the  prophetic 


LEOT.  VI  IN    THE    CANON  175 

series  with  the  seal  of  public  canonicity.  These  books  had 
no  need  to  be  brought  from  Babylon  with  the  approval  of  a 
royal  rescript,  or  laid  before  the  nation  by  the  authority  of 
a  Tirshatha.  The  only  form  of  public  recognition  which  was 
wanting,  and  wliich  followed  in  due  course,  was  the  practice 
of  reading  from  the  Prophets  in  the  public  worship  of  the 
synagogue.  It  required  no  more  formal  process  than  the 
natural  use  made  of  this  ancient  literature,  to  bring  it  little 
by  little  into  the  shape  of  a  fixed  collection,  though,  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  example  of  Jeremiah,  there  was  no  standard 
edition  up  to  a  comparatively  late  date.  In  the  time  of 
Daniel  we  already  find  the  prophetic  literature  referred  to 
under  the  name  of  "  the  books "  or  Scriptures  (Dan.  ix.  2). 
The  English  version  unfortunately  omits  the  article,  and  loses 
the  force  of  the  phrase. 

The  ultimate  form  of  the  prophetic  collection  is  contained 
in  the  Former  and  Latter  Prophets  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  of 
which  only  the  second  group  consists  mainly  of  prophecies, 
while  the  first  is  made  up  of  historical  books.  We  have 
seen  that  by  the  Jews  the  name  of  "  Former  Prophets  "  was 
justified  by  the  unhistorical  assumption  that  the  old  historical 
books  were  written  by  a  succession  of  prophets.  But  I  appre- 
hend that  the  association  of  histories  and  prophecies  in  one 
collection  is  older  than  the  designation  Former  and  Latter 
Prophets,  and  rested  on  a  correct  perception  (instinctive 
rather  than  critical)  that  the  histories  formed  a  necessary 
part  of  the  record  of  the  prophets'  work.  Without  the 
histories  the  prophetical  books  proper  would  be  almost  un- 
intelligible. And  further,  though  there  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  the  mass  of  the  histories  was  actually  written  by  the 
hand  of  prophets,  they  were  certainly  written,  or  at  least 
edited  and  brought  into  their  present  form,  by  men  who 
stood  under  the  influence  of  the  great  prophets  and  sought 
to  interpret  the  vicissitudes  of  Israel's  fortunes  in  accordance 


176  THE    PSALTER 


LECT.  VI 


with  the  laws  of  God's  governance  which  the  prophets  had 
laid  down.  There  was  therefore  good  reason  for  placing  the 
old  histories  in  the  same  collection  with  the  written  words  of 
the  prophets.  The  authority  of  this  collection,  which  was 
inextricably  interlaced  with  the  profoundest  experiences  of 
the  spiritual  life  of  Israel,  was  practically  never  disputed, 
and  its  influence  on  the  personal  religion  of  the  nation  was 
doubtless  in  inverse  ratio  to  the  preference  assigned  to  the 
Pentateuch  as  the  public  and  official  code  of  Ezra's  theo- 
cracy.-^ 

Equally  undisputed  was  the  position  of  the  Psalter,  the 
hymn-book  of  the  second  Temple.  The  Psalter,  as  we  shall 
see  in  a  future  Lecture,  has  a  complicated  history,  and,  along 
with  elements  of  great  antiquity,  contains  many  pieces  of  a 
date  long  subsequent  to  the  Exile,  or  even  to  Ezra.  In  its 
finished  form  the  collection  is  clearly  later  than  the  prophe- 
tical writings.  But  no  part  of  the  Old  Testament  appeals 
more  directly  to  the  believing  heart,  and  none  bears  a  clearer 
impress  of  inspiration  in  the  individual  poems,  and  of  divine 
guidance  in  their  collection.  That  the  book  containing  the 
subjective   utterance   of  Israel's   faith,   the    answer   of  the 

^  The  only  prophetic  book  as  to  which  any  dispute  seems  to  have  occurred 
was  Ezekiel.  The  beginning  of  this  book — the  picture  of  the  Merkaha,  or 
chariot  of  Jehovah's  glory  (1  Chron.  xxviii.  18) — has  always  been  viewed  as  a 
great  mystery  in  Jewish  theology,  and  is  the  basis  of  the  Kahhala  or  esoteric 
theosophy  of  the  Rabbins.  The  closing  chapters  were  equally  puzzling,  because 
they  give  a  system  of  law  and  ritual  divergent  in  many  points  from  the 
Pentateuch.  Compare  Jerome's  Ep.  to  Paulinus  :— "  The  beginning  and  end 
of  Ezekiel  are  involved  in  obscurities,  and  among  the  Hebrews  tliese  parts, 
and  the  exordium  of  Genesis,  must  not  be  read  by  a  man  under  thirty." 
Hence,  in  the  apostolic  age,  a  question  was  raised  as  to  the  value  of  the  book ; 
for,  of  course,  nothing  could  be  accepted  that  contradicted  the  Torah.  We 
read  in  the  Talmud  {Hagiga,  13  a)  that  "  but  for  Hananiah,  son  of  Hezekiah, 
tliey  would  have  suppressed  the  Book  of  Ezekiel,  because  its  words  contradict 
those  of  the  Torah.  What  did  he  do?  They  brought  up  to  him  three 
hundred  measures  of  oil,  and  he  sat  down  and  explained  it."  Derenbourg, 
op.  cit.  p.  296,  with  Graetz,  GescMchte,  vol.  iii.  p.  561,  is  disposed  to  hold 
that  the  scholar  who  reconciled  Ezekiel  with  the  Pentateuch  at  such  an 
expenditure  of  midnight  oil  was  really  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Hananiah. 


IN    THE    CANON  177 


believing  heart  to  the  word  of  revelation,  continued  to  grow 
after  the  prophetic  voice  was  still,  and  the  written  law  had 
displaced  the  living  word,  was  natural  and  necessary.  In 
the  Psalter  we  see  how  the  ordinances  of  the  new  tlieocracy 
established  themselves  in  the  hearts  of  the  people,  as  well  as 
in  the  external  order  of  the  community  at  Jerusalem,  and  the 
spiritual  aspects  of  the  Law  which  escaped  the  legal  subtilty 
of  tlie  Scribes  are  developed  in  such  Psalms  as  the  119th, 
witli  an  immediate  force  of  personal  conviction  which  has 
supplied  a  pattern  of  devotion  to  all  following  ages. 

Thus  three  great  masses  of  sacred  literature,  comprising 
those  elements  which  were  most  immediately  practical  under 
the  old  dispensation,  and  make  up  the  chief  permanent  value 
of  the  Old  Testament  for  the  Christian  Church,  took  shape 
and  attained  to  undisputed  authority  on  broad  grounds  of 
history,  and  through  processes  of  experimental  verification 
which  made  it  unnecessary  to  seek  complicated  theological 
arguments  to  justify  their  place  in  the  Canon.  The  Law,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Psalms  were  inseparably  linked  with  the 
very  existence  of  the  Old  Testament  Church.  Their  autho- 
rity was  not  derived  from  the  schools  of  the  Scribes,  and 
needed  no  sanction  from  them.  And,  though  the  spirit  of 
legalism  might  mistake  the  true  connection  and  relative  im- 
portance of  the  Law  and  the  other  books,  no  Pharisaism  was 
able  to  undermine  the  influence  of  those  evangelical  and 
eternal  truths  which  kept  true  spirituality  alive  in  Israel, 
while  the  official  theology  was  absorbed  in  exclusive  devotion 
to  the  temporary  ordinances  of  the  Law. 

The  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms  are  the  substance 
and  centre  of  the  Old  Testament,  on  which  the  new  dispensa- 
tion builds,  and  to  which  our  Lord  Himself  appeals  as  the 
witness  of  the  Old  Covenant  to  the  New.  The  exegesis 
which  insists,  against  every  rule  of  language,  that  the  Psalms 
in  Luke  xxiv.  44  mean  the  Hagiographa  as  a  whole  misses 


178  THE    COLLECTION 


the  point  of  our  Lord's  appeal  to  the  preceding  history  of 
revelation,  and  forgets  that  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  and  Esther 
are  not  once  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  and  were  still 
antilcgomena  in  the  apostolic  age. 

The  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  form  an  intel- 
ligible classification,  in  wdiich  each  element  has  a  distinctive 
character.  And  this  is  still  the  case  if  we  add  to  the  Psalter 
the  other  two  poetical  Books  of  Job  and  Proverbs,  which  stand 
beside  the  Psalms  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles.  But  the  collection 
of  the  Hagiographa,  as  a  whole,  is  not  homogeneous.  Why 
does  not  Daniel  stand  among  the  later  prophets,  Ezra  and 
Chronicles  among  the  historical  books  ?  Why  is  it  that  the 
Hagiographa  were  not  read  in  the  synagogue  ?  With  regard 
to  the  Psalms  this  is  intelligible.  They  had  their  original 
place,  not  in  the  synagogue,  but  in  the  Temple  service.  So, 
too,  the  Books  of  Job  and  Proverbs,  which  belong  to  the 
philosophy  of  the  Hebrews,  and  were  specially  adapted  for 
private  study,  might  seem  less  suitable  for  public  reading — 
Job,  in  particular,  requiring  to  be  studied  as  a  whole  if  one  is 
to  grasp  its  true  sense.  But  this  explanation  does  not  cover 
the  whole  Hagiographa.  Their  position  can  only  be  explained 
by  the  lateness  of  their  origin,  or  the  lateness  of  their  recog- 
nition as  authoritative  Scriptures.  The  miscellaneous  col- 
lection of  Hagiographa  appended  to  the  three  great  poetical 
books  is  the  region  of  the  Old  Testament  antilegomena,  and 
in  them  we  no  longer  stand  on  the  ground  of  undisputed 
authority  acknowledged  by  our  Lord,  and  rooted  in  the  very 
essence  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation. 

The  oldest  explicit  reference  to  a  third  section  of  sacred 
books  is  found  in  the  prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus,  written  in 
Egypt  about  130  B.C.  The  author  speaks  of  "  the  many  and 
great  things  given  to  us  through  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
and  the  others  who  followed  after  them  "  ;  and  again,  of  "  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  the  other  books  of  the  fathers,"  as 


LECT.  VI  OF    HAGIOGRAPHA  179 

the  study  of  liis  grandfather  and  other  Israelites,  who  aimed 
at  a  life  conformed  to  the  Law. 

When  the  other  books  of  the  fathers  are  said  to  have  been 
written  by  those  who  followed  after  the  prophets,  the  sense 
may  either  be  that  their  authors  were  later  in  time,  or  that 
they  were  subordinate  companions  of  the  prophets.  In  either 
case  the  author  plainly  regards  these  books  as  in  some  sense 
secondary  to  the  prophetic  writings ;  nor  does  it  appear  that 
in  his  time  there  was  a  distinct  and  definite  name  for  this 
collection,  or  perhaps  that  there  was  a  formal  collection  at  aU. 
The  overplus  of  God-given  literature,  after  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  are  deducted,  is  an  inheritance  from  the  fathers. 
We  must  not  infer  from  this  statement  that  all  ancient  books 
not  comprised  in  the  Law  and  the  prophets  were  accepted 
without  criticism  as  a  gift  of  God,  and  formed  a  third  class  of 
sacred  literature.  The  author  of  Chronicles  had  still  access 
to  older  books  which  are  now  lost ;  and  the  Book  of  Ecclesi- 
astes,  xii.  11  s^.,  warns  its  readers  against  the  futility  of  much 
of  the  literature  of  the  time,  and  admonishes  them  to  confine 
their  attention  to  the  words  of  the  wise,  the  teachings  of  the 
masters  of  assemblies,  i.e.  the  sages  met  in  council,  the 
experienced  "  circle  of  elders,"  praised  in  Ecclesiasticus  vi.  34. 
There  were  many  books  in  those  days  which  claimed  to  be 
the  work  of  ancient  worthies,  and  such  of  them  as  we  still 
possess  display  a  very  different  spirit  and  merit  from  the 
acknowledged  Hagiographa.  There  must  have  been  a  sifting 
process  applied  to  this  huge  mass  of  literature,  and  the 
Hagiographa  are  the  result.  But  it  is  not  so  easy  to  explain 
how  this  sifting  took  place  and  led  to  the  collection  which  we 
now  receive. 

One  thing  is  clear.  The  very  separation  of  the  Hagio- 
grapha from  the  books  of  cognate  character  which  stand  in 
the  second  section  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  proves  that  the 
third  collection  was  formed  after  the  second  had  been  closed. 


180  THE    COLLECTION  lect.  vi 

And  since  the  prophetic  collection  was  itself  a  gradual  forma- 
tion, fixed  not  by  external  authority  but  by  silent  consent, 
this  brings  the  collection  of  the  Hagiographa  down  long  after 
the  time  of  Ezra.  With  this  it  agrees  that  some  of  the  books 
of  the  Hagiographa  did  not  originate  till  the  very  end  of  the 
Persian  period  at  earliest.  The  genealogies  in  Chronicles 
and  Nehemiah  give  direct  proof  of  this  fact,  and  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiastes  can  hardly  be  dated  before  the  Chronicles ;  while 
even  the  most  conservative  critics  now  begin  to  admit  that 
Daniel  did  not  exist  (at  least  in  its  present  form)  till  the  time 
of  the  Maccabees.  Neither  Esther  nor  Daniel,  nor  indeed 
Ezra,  is  alluded  to  in  the  list  of  worthies  in  Ecclesiasticus. 

The  determination  of  the  collection  of  the  Hagiographa 
must  therefore  have  taken  place  at  an  epoch  when  the 
tradition  of  the  Scribes  was  in  full  force,  and  we  cannot 
assert  that  their  false  theories  had  no  influence  on  the  work. 
If  they  had  a  share  in  determining  the  collection,  we  can  tell 
with  tolerable  certainty  what  principles  they  acted  on.  For 
to  them  all  sacred  writings  outside  the  Torah  were  placed  on 
one  footing  with  the  oral  law.  In  substance  there  was  no 
difference  between  written  books  and  oral  tradition.  Both 
alike  were  divine  and  authoritative  expositions  of  the  law. 
There  was  traditional  Halacha  expanding  and  applying  legal 
precepts,  but  there  was  also  traditional  Haggada,  recognised 
as  a  rule  of  faith  and  life,  and  embracing  doctrinal  topics, 
practical  exhortation,  embellishments  and  fabulous  develop- 
ments of  Bible  narratives.-^  The  difference  between  these 
traditions  and  the  sacred  books  lay  only  in  the  form.  Tradi- 
tion was  viewed  as  essentially  adapted  for  oral  communication. 
Every  attempt  to  reduce  it  to  writing  was  long  discouraged 
by  the  Scribes.     It  was  a  common  possession  of  the  learned, 

1  It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  Haggada  had  no  sacred  authority.  So 
Zunz,  op.  cit.  p.  42  ;  Deutsch's  Remains,  p.  17  ;  but  compare,  on  the  other 
hand,  Weber,  op.  cit.  p.  94  sq.  Certain  Haggadoth  share  with  the  Halacha 
the  name  of  Midda,  rule  of  faith  and  life. 


OF    HAGIOORAPHA  181 


which  no  man  had  a  right  to  appropriate  and  fix  by  putting 
it  in  a  book  of  bis  own.  The  authority  of  tradition  did  not 
lie  with  the  man  wdio  uttered  it,  but  in  the  source  from  which 
it  had  come  down ;  and  any  tradition  not  universally  current 
and  acknowledged  as  of  old  authority  had  to  be  authenticated 
by  evidence  that  he  who  used  it  had  heard  it  from  an  older 
scholar,  whose  reputation  for  fidelity  was  a  guarantee  that  he 
in  turn  had  received  it  from  a  sure  source.  The  same  test 
would  doubtless  be  applied  to  a  written  book.  Books  ad- 
mittedly new  had  no  authority.  Nothing  could  be  accepted 
unless  it  had  the  stamp  of  general  currency,  or  was  authenti- 
cated by  the  name  of  an  ancient  author  dating  from  the 
period  antecedent  to  the  Scribes.  All  this,  as  we  see  from 
the  pseudepigraphic  books,  offered  a  great  temptation  to 
forgery,  but  it  offered  also  a  certain  security  that  doubtful 
books  would  not  be  admitted  till  they  had  passed  the  test  of 
such  imperfect  criticism  as  the  Scribes  could  apply.  And, 
besides  all  this,  the  ultimate  criterion  to  which  every  book 
was  subjected  lay  in  the  supreme  standard  of  the  Law. 
Nothing  was  holy  which  did  not  agree  with  the  teaching  of 
the  Pentateuch. 

For  some  of  the  Hagiographa  the  test  of  old  currency  was 
plainly  conclusive.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  Book  of  Job 
was  ever  challenged,  and  the  vague  notices  of  a  discussion 
about  the  Proverbs  that  are  found  in  Jewish  books  are  not 
of  a  kind  to  command  credence.^  The  same  thing  holds 
good  of  the  Lamentations,  which  in  all  probability  were 
ascribed  to  Jeremiah  as  early  as  the  time  of  the  Chronicler.^ 

1  Ahoth  of  R.  Nathan,  c.  1.  — "  At  first  tliey  said  tliat  Proverbs,  Canticles, 
and  Ecclesiastes  are  apocryphal.  They  said  they  were  parabolic  writings,  and 
not  of  the  Hagiographa  .  .  .  till  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  came  and 
explained  them."     C\}.  B.  Shabbaih  30  b  ;  Kyle,  p.  194  sq. 

2  "In  2  Chron.  xxxv.  25  we  read  that  Jeremiah  pronounced  a  dirge  over 
Josiah,  and  that  the  death  of  Josiah  was  still  referred  to  according  to  stated 
usage  in  the  dirges  used  by  singing  men  and  women  in  the  author's  day, 
and  collected  in  a  volume  of  KinCth — the  ordinary  Jewish  name  of  our  book. 


182  THE    HAGIOGEAPHA  lect,  vi 

Euth,  again,  is  treated  by  Joseplius  as  an  appendix  to  Judges, 
and  though  this  reckoning  cannot  be  shown  to  have  had 
Palestinian  authority,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
book  was  generally  accepted  as  a  valuable  supplement  to  the 
history  of  the  period  of  the  Judges.  The  case  of  the  other 
books  is  not  so  clear,  and  for  all  of  them  (except  Daniel, 
whose  case  is  peculiar)  we  have  evidence  that  their  position 
was  long  disputed,  and  only  gradually  secured. 

The  book  of  Ezra-lSTehemiah  has  a  special  value  for  the 
history  of  the  Old  Covenant,  and  contains  information 
absolutely  indispensable,  embodying  contemporary  records  of 
the  close  of  the  productive  period  of  Israel's  history.  Yet 
we  find  that  the  Alexandrian  Jews  were  once  content  to 
receive  it  in  the  form  of  a  Midrash  (^  Esdras  of  the  LXX., 
■^  Esdras  of  the  English  Apocrypha),  with  many  fabulous 
additions  and  a  text  arbitrarily  mangled.  The  Chronicles, 
according  to  all  appearance,  were  once  one  book  with  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  from  which  they  have  been  so  rudely  torn 
that  2  Chronicles  now  ends  in  the  middle  of  a  verse,  which 
reappears  complete  at  the  beginning  of  Ezra.  But  the 
Chronicles  now  stand  after  Ezra-ISTehemiah,  as  if  it  were  an 
afterthought  to  admit  them  to  equal  authority.  When  the 
Greek  Book  of  Esdras  was  composed  of  extracts  from  Chroni- 
cles, as  well  as  from  Ezra  and  ISTehemiah,  the  three  books 

Josephus  says  that  the  dirge  of  Jeremiah  on  this  occasion  was  extant  in  his 
days  (Ant.  x.  5.  1),  and  no  doubt  means  by  this  the  canonical  Lamentations, 
Jerome  on  Zech.  xii.  11  understands  the  passage  of  Chronicles  in  the  same 
sense  ;  but  modern  writers  have  generally  assumed  that,  as  our  book  was 
certainly  written  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  the  dirges  alluded  to  in  Chronicles 
must  be  a  separate  collection.  This,  however,  is  far  from  clear.  The  Ki7i6th 
of  the  Chronicler  had,  according  to  his  statement,  acquired  a  fixed  and  statu- 
tory place  in  Israel,  and  were  connected  with  the  name  of  a  prophet.  In 
other  words,  they  were  canonical  as  far  as  any  book  outside  the  Pentateuch 
could  be  so  called  in  that  age.  Moreover,  the  allusion  to  the  king,  the 
anointed  of  Jehovah,  in  Lam,  iv.  20,  though  it  really  applies  to  Zedekiah, 
speaks  of  him  with  a  warmth  of  sympathy  which  later  ages  would  not  feel  for 
any  king  after  Josiah." — Encyc.  Brit,  9th  ed.,  art.  Lamentations,  following 
Noldeke,  Alttcstamentliche  Literatur  (1868),  p.  144. 


LECT.  VI  IN    THE    CANON  183 


were  probably  still  read  as  one  work.^  From  these  facts  it  is 
reasonable  to  infer  that  in  spite  of  their  close  agreement  with 
the  conceptions  of  the  Scribes,  it  was  long  held  to  be  doubtful 
whether  the  Chronicles  deserved  a  place  among  the  Scriptures 
or  should  be  relegated  to  a  lower  sphere.  The  first  decision 
must  have  been  to  accept  only  that  part  of  the  book  which 
embodied  the  autobiographies  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

For  Daniel,  the  facts  point  to  late  origin  rather  than  late 
admission.  Daniel  is  not  mentioned  among  the  worthies  in 
Ecclesiasticus,  and  had  his  book  been  known  in  old  times  it 
would  surely  liave  stood  with  the  prophets. 

The  authority  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  which  is  not  used  by 
Philo  or  the  New  Testament,  is  necessarily  connected  with 
the  diffusion  of  the  feast  of  Purim.  Now,  the  book  contains 
two  ordinances  on  this  head — the  observance  of  the  feast 
proper  (Esther  ix.  22),  and  the  celebration  of  a  memorial  fast 
preceding  it  (Esther  ix.  31).  According  to  Jewish  usage,  the 
fast  falls  on  the  13th  of  Adar.  But  this  was  the  day  when 
Judas  Maccabseus  defeated  and  slew  Mcanor  in  the  battle  of 
Bethhoron,  and  was  kept  as  a  joyful  anniversary  in  Palestine 
from  that  time  onward  (1  Mac.  vii.  48).  The  day  of  Nicanor 
is  still  placed  among  the  anniversaries  on  which  fasting  is 
forbidden  in  the  Megillath  Taanith,  after  the  death  of 
Trajan.  In  Palestine,  therefore,  at  the  time  of  our  Lord,  the 
fast  of  Purim  was  not  observed,  and  it  may  well  be  doubted 
whether  even  the  subsequent  feast  was  universally  acknow- 
ledged. The  Palestinian  Talmud  still  contains  traditions 
of  opposition  to  its  introduction  ;  while  the  other  Talmud 
{B.  Mcgill.  7  a,  Sanh.  100  a)  names  certain  eminent  Eabbins 
who  denied  that  Esther  "  defiles  the  hands,"  i.e.  is  canonical. 

1  The  most  palpable  argument  for  the  original  unity  of  Chronicles,  Ezra, 
and  Nehemiah  is  tliat  mentioned  in  the  text.  But  further,  the  parts  of  Ezra- 
Nehemiah  which  are  not  extracts  from  documents  in  the  hands  of  the  editor 
display  all  the  characteristic  peculiarities  of  the  Chronicles  in  style,  language, 
and  manner  of  thought.     See  Driver,  Introduction,  chap.  xii. 


184  CLOSE    OF   THE 


LECT.  VI 


And,  again,  it  is  a  notable  circumstance  that  the  book  is  so 
freely  handled  in  the  two  Greek  recensions  of  the  text. 

The  Book  of  Esther  was  not  undisputed  in  the  early  Chris- 
tian Church ;  and,  according  to  Eusebius,  Melito,  Bishop  of 
Sardis  in  the  third  quarter  of  the  second  century,  journeyed 
to  Palestine  to  ascertain  the  Jewish  Canon  of  his  time,  and 
brought  back  a  list,  from  which  Esther  was  excluded.-^ 

The  last  stage  in  the  history  of  the  Jewish  Canon  is  most 
clearly  exhibited  in  the  case  of  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  wdiich  were  still  controverted  up  to  the  very  end  of 
the  first  Christian  century.  In  earlier  times,  as  we  have 
seen,  no  urgent  necessity  was  felt  to  determine  the  precise 
compass  of  the  sacred  books.  But  in  the  apostolic  age  more 
than  one  circumstance  called  for  a  definite  decision  on  the 
subject  of  the  Canon.  The  school  of  Hillel,  with  its  new  and 
more  powerful  exegetical  methods,  directed  to  find  a  Scrip- 
ture proof  for  every  tradition,  was  naturally  busied  with  the 
compass,  as  well  as  the  text,  of  the  ancient  Scriptures.  R 
Akiba,  a  rigid  spirit  averse  to  all  compromise,  would  admit 
no  middle  class  between  sacred  books  and  books  which  it 
was  a  sin  to  read.  "  Those  who  read  the  outside  books  have 
no  part  in  the  life  to  come."  ^     Such  books  were  to  be  buried 

^  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  26.  It  is  certainly  very  hard  to 
understand  what  Jewish  authorities  could  omit  Esther  at  so  late  a  date,  but 
the  statement  of  Eusebius  is  precise.  In  the  fourth  century  Athanasius  and 
Gregory  of  Naziauzus  still  omit  Esther  from  the  Canon.  The  ordinance  of 
the  fast  of  Purim  (Esther  ix.  31),  which  we  see  not  to  have  been  observed  in 
Palestine  in  the  time  of  Christ,  is  lacking  in  the  Greek  text  of  Esther,  and  in 
Josephus,  Ant.  xi.  6.  13,  where,  however,  we  are  told  that  the  feast  was 
celebrated  by  the  Jews  throughout  the  world.  On  the  origin  of  the  feast  of 
Purim,  see  Lagarde,  Purim  (Gott,  1887  ;  Ahhandlungen  of  the  Gottingen 
Academy,  vol.  xxxiv.),  who  connects  it  with  the  Persian  Furdigan,  and 
Zimmern  in  Stade's  Zeitschrift f.  AT,  W.  (1891),  p.  157  sqq.,  who  argues  for 
a  connection  with  the  Babylonian  New  Year  Feast.  That  the  observance  of 
Purim  began  not  in  Palestine,  but  in  the  Eastern  Dispersion,  is  i)robable 
almost  to  certainty.  On  the  Mcgillath  Tdanith,  or  list  of  days  on  which  the 
Jews  are  forbidden  to  fast,  consult  Derenbourg,  p.  439  sq. 

-  Mishna,  Sanhedrin,  xi.  1  (ed.  Suren.,  vol.  iv.  p.  259).  —  "All  Israelites 
have  a  share  in  the  world  to  come,  except  those  who  deny  the  resurrection  of 


LECT.  VI  JEWISH    CANON  185 

— thrust  away  in  the  rubbish -room  to  which  condemned 
synagogue  rolls  w^ere  relegated.  But  the  immediately  practical 
call  for  a  precise  definition  of  the  compass  of  the  sacred  books 
arose  from  the  circumstance  that  this  question  came  to  be 
necessarily  associated  with  a  point  of  ritual  observance.  Tlie 
Eabbins,  always  jealous  for  the  ceremonial  sanctity  of  sacred 
things,  were  concerned  to  preserve  copies  of  the  Scriptures 
from  being  lightly  handled  or  used  for  common  purposes. 
They  therefore  devised,  in  accordance  with  their  principle  of 
hedirinc^  in  the  law,  a  Halacha  to  the  effect  that  the  sacred 
books  communicate  ceremonial  uncleanness  to  hands  that 
touch  them,  or  to  food  with  which  they  are  brought  in  contact. 
This  ordinance  was  well  devised  for  the  object  in  view,  for  it 
secured  that  such  books  should  be  kept  in  a  place  by  them- 
selves, and  not  lightly  handled.  But  it  now  became  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  know  which  books  defile  the  hands.  The 
Mishna  contains  a  special  treatise  on  "  hands  "  {ladaim),  and 
here  we  find  authentic  information  on  the  controversies  to 
which  the  ordinance  gave  rise.  Two  books  were  involved. 
The  schools  of  Shammai  and  Hillel  were  divided  as  to 
Ecclesiastes.  But  there  was  also  discussion  as  to  the  Song 
of  Solomon,  and  both  points  came  up  for  decision  at 
a  great  assembly  held  in  lamnia  {ca.  90  a.d.  ?),  where  R 
Akiba  took  a  commanding  place.  Some  of  the  doctors  must 
have  hinted  that  the  canonicity  of  Canticles  was  a  moot-point. 
But  Akiba  struck  in  with  his  wonted  energy,  and  silenced  all 
dispute.  "  God  forbid ! "  he  cried.  "  No  one  in  Israel  has 
ever  doubted  that  the  Song  of  Solomon  defiles  the  hands. 
For  no  day  in  the  history  of  the  world  is  worth  the  day  when 

the  dead,  those  who  say  that  the  Torah  is  not  from  God,  and  the  Epicureans. 
R.  Akiba  adds  those  who  read  in  outside  books,  and  him  who  whispers  over 
a  wound  the  words  of  Exod.  xv.  26,"— a  kind  of  cliarm,  the  sin  of  which, 
according  to  the  commentators,  \^y  in  the  fact  that  these  sacred  words  were 
pronounced  after  spitting  over  the  sore.  Compare  on  the  "  outside  books  " 
Geiger,  p.  200  sq. 


186  CLOSE    OF    THE  lect.  vi 

the  Song  of  Solomon  was  given  to  Israel.  For  all  the  Hagio- 
grapha  are  holy,  but  the  Song  of  Solomon  is  a  holy  of  the 
holies.  If  there  has  been  any  dispute,  it  referred  only  to 
Ecclesiastes."  ^ 

In  the  characteristic  manner  of  theological  partisanship, 
Akiba  speaks  with  most  confident  decision  on  the  points 
where  he  knew  his  case  to  be  weakest.  So  far  was  it  from 
being  true  that  no  one  had  ever  doubted  the  canonicity  of 
Canticles  that  he  himself  had  to  hurl  an  anathema  at  those 
who  sang  the  Song  of  Solomon  with  quavering  voice  in  the 
banqueting  house  as  if  it  were  a  common  lay.  The  same 
tendency  to  cover  the  historical  weakness  of  the  position  of 
disputed  books  by  energetic  protestations  of  their  superla- 
tive worth  appears  in  what  the  Palestinian  Talmud  relates  of 
the  opinions  of  the  Doctors  as  to  the  roll  of  Esther.  While 
some  Eabbins,  appealing  to  Deuteronomy  v.  22,  maintained 

1  Mishna,  ladaim,  iii.  5. — "All  the  Holy  Scriptures  defile  the  hands: 
the  Song  of  Solomon  and  Ecclesiastes  defile  the  hands.  R.  Judah  says,  The 
Song  of  Solomon  defiles  the  hands,  and  Ecclesiastes  is  disputed.  R.  Jose 
says,  Ecclesiastes  does  not  defile  the  hands,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  is  dis- 
puted. K  Simeon  says,  Ecclesiastes  belongs  to  the  light  things  of  the 
school  of  Shammai,  and  the  heavy  things  of  the  school  of  Hillel  [i.e.  on  this 
point  the  school  of  Shammai  is  less  strict].  R.  Simeon,  son  of  Azzai,  says,  I 
received  it  as  a  tradition  from  the  seventy-two  elders  on  the  day  when  they 
enthroned  R.  Eliezer,  son  of  Azariah  [as  President  of  the  Beth  Din  at  lamnia, 
which  became  the  seat  of  the  heads  of  the  Scribes  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem], 
that  the  Song  of  Solomon  and  Ecclesiastes  defile  the  hands.  R.  Akiba  said, 
God  forbid  !  No  one  in  Israel  has  ever  doubted  that  the  Song  of  Solomon 
defiles  the  hands.  For  no  day  in  the  history  of  the  world  is  worth  the  day 
when  the  Song  of  Solomon  was  given  to  Israel.  For  all  the  Hagiographa  are 
holy,  but  the  Song  of  Solomon  is  a  holy  of  the  holies.  If  there  has  been  any 
dispute,  it  referred  only  to  Ecclesiastes.  ...  So  they  disputed,  and  so  they 
decided." 

Eduioth,  V.  3. — "  Ecclesiastes  does  not  defile  the  hands  according  to  the 
school  of  Shammai,  but  does  so  according  to  the  school  of  Hillel." 

For  the  disputes  as  to  Ecclesiastes,  compare  also  Jerome  on  chap.  xii.  13, 
14.  "The  Hebrews  say  that  this  book,  which  calls  all  God's  creatures  vain, 
and  prefers  meat,  drink,  and  passing  delights  to  all  else,  might  seem  worthy 
to  disappear  with  other  lost  works  of  Solomon  ;  but  that  it  merits  canonical 
authority,  because  it  sums  up  the  whole  argument  in  the  precept  to  fear  God 
and  do  His  commandment." 


LECT.  VI 


JEWISH    CANON  187 


that  a  day  must  come  when  the  Hagiographa  and  the  Prophets 
would  become  obsolete,  and  only  the  Law  remain  ;  nay,  says 
Eabbi  Simeon,  Esther  and  the  Halachoth  can  never  become 
obsolete  (Esther  ix.  28).^ 

In  speaking  of  these  Old  Testament  Antilegomena  I  have 
confined  myself  to  a  simple  statement  of  facts  that  are  not 
open  to  dispute.  It  is  matter  of  fact  that  the  position  of 
several  books  was  still  subject  of  controversy  in  the  apostolic 
age,  and  was  not  finally  determined  till  after  the  fall  of  the 
Temple  and  the  Jewish  state.  Before  that  date  the  Hagio- 
grapha did  not  form  a  closed  collection  with  an  undisputed 
list  of  contents,  and  therefore  the  general  testimony  of  Christ 
and  the  Apostles  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  cannot  be 
used  as  certainly  including  books  like  Esther,  Canticles,  and 
Ecclesiastes,  which  were  still  disputed  among  the  orthodox 
Jews  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  to  which  the  New  Testament 
never  makes  reference.  These  books  have  been  delivered  to 
us ;  they  have  their  use  and  value,  which  are  to  be  ascer- 
tained by  a  frank  and  reverent  study  of  the  texts  themselves ; 
but  those  w4io  insist  on  placing  them  on  the  same  footing 
wdth  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  to  which  our 
Lord  bears  direct  testimony,  and  so  make  the  whole  doctrine 
of  the  Canon  depend  on  its  weakest  part,  sacrifice  the  true 
strength  of  the  evidence  on  which  the  Old  Testament  is 
received  by  Christians,  and  commit  the  same  fault  with  Akiba 
and  his  fellow  Piabbins,  who  bore  down  the  voice  of  free 
inquiry  with  anathemas  instead  of  argument. 

^  Akiba's  anathema  in  Tosef.  Sanhedrin,  c.  12  ;  R.  Simeon's  utterance  in 
Talmud  Jer.  Megilla,  i.  5  (Krotoschin  ed.  of  1S6G,  f.  70  b). 


LECTUEE  YII 


THE   PSALTER 


Up  to  this  point  we  have  been  occupied  with  general  dis- 
cussions as  to  the  transmission  of  the  Old  Testament  among 
the  Jews,  and  the  collection  of  its  books  into  a  sacred  Canon. 
In  the  remaining  part  of  our  course  we  must  deal  with  the 
origin  of  individual  books;  and  as  it  is  impossible  in  six 
Lectures  to  go  over  the  whole  field  of  the  Old  Testament 
literature,  I  shall  confine  myself  to  the  discussion  of  some 
cardinal  problems  referring  to  the  three  great  central  masses 
of  the  Old  Testament,  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms. 
The  present  Lecture  will  deal  with  the  Book  of  Psalms. 

The  Psalter,  as  we  have  it,  unquestionably  contains 
Psalms  of  the  Exile  and  the  new  Jerusalem.  It  is  also 
generally  held  to  contain  Psalms  of  the  period  of  David,  thus 
embracing  within  its  compass  poems  extending  over  a  range 
of  some  five  hundred  years.  How  did  such  a  collection  come 
together?  How  was  it  formed,  and  how  were  the  earlier 
Psalms  preserved  up  to  the  date  when  they  were  embodied 
in  our  present  Psalter  ? 

In  discussing  this  question,  let  us  begin  by  looking  at  the 
nature  and  objects  of  the  Psalter.  The  Book  of  Psalms  is  a 
collection  of  religious  and  devotional  poetry.  It  is  made  up 
mainly  of  prayers  and  songs  of  praise,  with  a  certain  number 
of  didactic  pieces.     But  it  is  not  a  collection  of  all  the  religious 


LECT.  VII  THE    PSALTER  189 

poetry  of  Israel.  That  is  maniiest  from  the  circumstance 
that,  with  one  exception  (2  Sam.  xxii.  =  Psalm  xviii.),  the 
poems  preserved  in  the  old  historical  books  are  not  repeated 
in  the  Psalter.  Nor,  again,  was  the  collection  formed  with 
an  historical  object.  It  is  true  that  there  are  some  titles 
which  contain  historical  notes,  but  on  the  other  hand  there 
are  many  Psalms  whose  contents  naturally  suggest  an  inquiry 
as  to  the  historical  situation  in  which  they  were  composed,  but 
where  we  have  no  title  or  hint  of  any  sort  to  answer  that 
question.  Again,  although  the  Psalms  represent  a  great  range 
of  personal  religious  experience,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  they 
avoid  such  situations  and  expressions  as  are  of  too  unique  a 
character  to  be  used  in  the  devotion  of  other  believers.  The 
feelings  expressed  in  the  Psalter  are  mainly  such  as  can  be 
shared  by  every  devout  soul,  if  not  in  every  circumstance, 
yet  at  least  in  circumstances  which  frequently  recur  in  human 
life.  Some  of  the  Psalms  are  manifestly  written  from  the 
first  with  a  general  devotional  purpose,  as  prayers  or  praises 
which  can  be  used  in  any  mouth.  In  others,  again,  the  poet 
seems  to  speak,  not  in  his  private  person,  but  in  the  name  of 
the  people  of  God  as  a  whole ;  and  even  the  Psalms  more 
directly  individual  in  occasion  have  so  much  catholicity  of 
sentiment  that  they  have  served  with  the  other  hymns  of  the 
Psalter  as  a  manual  of  devotion  for  the  Church  in  all  a^es  of 
both  dispensations.^ 

1  Some  recent  writers  go  so  far  as  to  maintain  that  in  all  (or  almost  all) 
the  Psalms,  the  speaker  is  Israel,  the  church-nation  personified,  so  that  the 
"I"  and  "me"  of  the  Psalms  throughout  mean  "we,"  "us,"  the  community 
of  God's  grace  and  worship.  So  especially  Smend  in  Stade's  Zeitschrift,  viii. 
49  sqq.  (1888).  Few  will  be  disposed  to  go  so  far  as  Smend  ;  but  the  view 
that  many  Psalms  are  spoken  in  the  name  of  the  community  is  no  novelty, 
and  can  hardly  be  disputed.  There  is,  of  course,  room  for  much  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  limits  within  which  this  method  of  interpreting  the  "I" 
and  "me"  of  the  Psalms  is  to  be  applied.  Driver,  Introduction,  p.  366  sq., 
would  confine  it  to  a  few  Psalms,  while  Cheyne  (whose  remarks  on  the  bear- 
ing of  the  question  on  the  use  of  the  Psalter  in  the  Christian  Church  will 
repay  perusal)  gives  it  a  much  larger  range.  {Origin  of  the  Psalter,  1891, 
Lecture  YI.) 


190  THE   PSALTER 


LECT.  VII 


The  Psalms,  then,  are  a  collection  of  religious  poetry, 
chosen  with  a  special  view  to  the  edification  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Church.  But  further,  the  purpose  immediately  con- 
templated in  the  collection  is  not  the  private  edification  of 
the  individual  Israelite,  but  the  public  worship  of  the  Old 
Testament  Church  in  the  Temple,  and  necessarily  (since 
some  of  the  Psalms  are  later  than  the  Exile),  in  the  second 
Temple.  This  appears  most  clearly  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
book,  where  we  meet  with  many  Psalms  obviously  composed 
from  the  first  for  liturgical  use.  Some  are  doxologies  ;  others 
are  largely  made  up  of  extracts  from  earlier  Psalms,  in  a  way 
very  natural  in  a  liturgical  manual  of  devotion,  but  not  so 
natural  in  a  poet  merely  composing  a  hymn  for  his  personal 
use.  The  liturgical  element  is  specially  prominent  in  those 
Psalms  (from  civ.  onwards)  which  begin  or  end  with  the 
phrase  Hallelujah,  "  Praise  ye  the  Lord."  This  phrase  con- 
nects the  Hallelujah  Psalms  with  the  part  of  the  Temple 
service  called  the  hallel,  which  denotes  a  jubilant  song  of 
praise  executed  to  the  accompaniment  of  Levitical  music, 
and  the  blare  of  the  priestly  trumpets  (1  Chron.  xvi.  4  sg[q., 
xxv.  3 ;  2  Chron.  v.  12  sq.,  xxix.  27-30).  By  the  later  Jews 
the  term  hallel  is  mainly  applied  to  Psalms  cxiii.-cxviii., 
which  were  sung  at  the  great  annual  feasts,  at  the  encaenia 
(the  feast  spoken  of  in  John  x.  22),  and  at  the  new  moons. 
Again,  throughout  the  Psalms,  the  Temple,  Zion,  the  Holy 
City,  are  kept  in  the  foreground.  Once  more,  the  same 
destination  appears  in  the  titles.  The  musical  titles  are  full 
of  technical  terms  which  occur  again  in  the  Book  of  Chroni- 
cles in  descriptions  of  the  Levitical  Psalmody  of  the  Temple. 
The  proper  names  in  the  titles  have  a  similar  reference.  The 
sons  of  Korah  were  a  guild  of  Temple  musicians  ;  Asaph  was 
the  father  and  patron  of  a  similar  guild ;  Heman  and  Ethan 
are  named  in  the  Chronicles  as  Temple  singers  of  the  time  of 
David.     Finally,  the  very  name  of  the  Psalter  in  the  Hebrew 


LECT.  VII  AS    A    HYMNAL  191 

Bible  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  The  Psalms  are  called 
Tchillim,  hymns,  from  the  same  root  as  Hallelujah,  and  with 
the  same  allusion  to  the  Temple  service  of  praise.^ 

The  fact  that  the  Psalter  is  a  hymnal  at  once  elucidates 
some  important  features  in  the  book,  and  suggests  certain 
rules  for  its  profitable  use  and  study.  The  liturgical  character 
of  the  Psalms  explains  their  universality,  and  justifies  the 
large  use  made  of  them  in  the  Christian  Church.  As  a 
liturgical  collection,  the  Psalter  expresses  the  feelings  and 
hopes,  the  faith,  the  prayers  and  the  praises  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Church,  their  sense  of  sin,  and  their  joyful  apprehen- 
sion of  God's  salvation.  These  are  the  subjective  elements 
of  religion,  the  answer  of  the  believing  heart  to  God.  And 
precisely  in  these  elements  the  religion  of  all  ages  is  much 
alike.  The  New  Testament  revelation  made  a  OTeat  chancre 
in  the  objective  elements  of  religion.  Old  ideas  and  forms 
passed  away,  and  new  things  took  their  place ;  but  through 
all  this  growth  of  the  objective  side  of  revelation,  the  devotion 
of  the  faithful  heart  to  God  remains  essentially  one  and  the 
same.  Our  faith,  our  sense  of  sin,  our  trust  upon  God  and 
His  salvation,  the  language  of  our  prayers  and  praises,  are 
still  one  with  those  of  the  Old  Testament  Church.  It  is  true 
that  not  a  little  of  the  colouring  of  the  Psalms  is  derived 
from  the  ritual  and  order  of  the  old  dispensation,  and  has 
now  become  antiquated ;  but  practical  religion  does  not  refuse 

^  The  later  Jews  were  not  completely  informed  as  to  the  liturgical  use  of 
the  Psalter  in  the  Temple  services.  There  is  even  some  uncertainty  as  to 
what  parts  of  the  Hallelujah  Psalms  are  included  in  the  Eallel,  presumably 
because  several  selections  from  this  part  of  the  Psalter  were  used.  Of  the  daily 
Psalms,  sung  at  the  morning  sacrifice,  the  following  list,  which  has  every 
appearance  of  authenticity,  is  given  in  the  Mishna  Tamid,  vii.  4  (Surenh., 
V.  10) :  Sunday,  Ps.  24  ;  Monday,  Ps.  48  ;  Tuesday,  Ps.  82  ;  Wednesday, 
Ps.  94 ;  Thursday,  Ps.  81  ;  Friday,  Ps.  93  ;  Sabbath,  Ps.  92.  Ps.  92  is 
assigned  to  the  Sabbath  in  the  title,  and  the  titles  in  the  Septuagint  also 
confirm  the  statements  of  the  Mishna,  except  as  regards  Pss.  81  and  82,  the 
former  of  which  must  originally  have  been  written  for  some  great  feast  (see 
verse  3  [Heb.  4]).  According  to  tradition  it  was  sung  at  the  Feast  of 
Trumpets  (Numb.  xxix.  1),  as  well  as  at  the  ordinary  Thursday  service. 


192  THE    PSALTER  lect.  vii 

those  bonds  of  connection  with  the  past.  The  believing  soul 
is  never  anxious  to  separate  its  own  spiritual  life  from  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  fathers.  Eatlier  does  it  cling  with  special 
affection  to  the  links  that  unite  it  to  the  Church  of  the  Old 
Testament;  and  the  forms  which,  in  their  literal  sense,  are 
now  antiquated,  become  to  us  an  additional  group  of  figures 
in  the  rich  poetic  imagery  of  the  Hebrew  hymnal. 

But  the  Psalter  and  the  Old  Testament  in  general  are  to 
us  not  merely  books  of  devotion,  but  sources  of  study  for  the 
better  knowledge  of  the  whole  course  of  God's  revelation.  It 
is  a  law  of  all  science  that,  to  know  a  thing  thoroughly,  we 
must  know  it  in  its  genesis  and  in  its  growth.  To  under- 
stand the  ways  of  God  with  man,  and  the  whole  meaning  of 
His  plan  of  salvation,  it  is  necessary  to  go  back  and  see  His 
work  in  its  beginnings,  examining  the  rudimentary  stages  of 
the  process  of  revelation ;  and  for  this  the  Psalms  are  invalu- 
able, for  they  give  us  the  first  answer  of  the  believing  heart 
to  God  under  a  dispensation  where  the  objective  elements  of 
revelation  were  far  less  fully  developed,  and  where  spiritual 
processes  were  in  many  respects  more  naive  and  childlike. 
While  the  simple  Christian  can  always  take  up  the  Psalm- 
book  and  use  it  for  devotion,  appropriating  those  elements 
which  remain  the  same  in  all  ages,  those  who  are  called  upon 
to  study  the  Bible  systematically,  and  who  desire  to  learn  all 
that  can  be  learned  from  it,  will  also  look  at  the  Psalms  from 
another  point  of  view.  Eecognising  the  fact  that  many  of 
them  have  an  historical  occasion,  and  that  they  express  the 
life  of  a  particular  stage  of  the  Old  Testament  Church,  they 
will  endeavour  to  study  the  history  of  the  collection,  and 
ascertain  what  can  be  learned  of  the  epoch  and  situation  in 
which  each  Psalm  was  written. 

In  entering  upon  this  study,  it  is  highly  important  to 
carry  with  us  the  fact  that  the  Psalms  are  preserved  to  us, 
not  in  an  historical  collection,  but  in  a  hymn-book  specially 


LECT.  VII  AS   A   HYMNAL  193 

adapted  for  the  use  of  the  second  Temple.  The  plan  of  a  hynni- 
book  does  not  secure  that  every  poem  shall  be  given  exactly 
as  it  was  written  by  the  first  author.  The  practical  object  of 
the  collection  makes  it  legitimate  and  perhaps  necessary  that 
there  should  be  such  adaptations  and  alterations  as  may  secure 
a  larger  scope  of  practical  utility  in  ordinary  services. 

In  a  book  which  contains  Psalms  spreading  over  a  period 
of  perhaps  five  hundred  years,  such  a  period  as  that 
which  separates  Chaucer  from  Tennyson,  or  Dante  from 
Manzoni,  changes  of  this  kind  could  hardly  be  avoided ;  and 
so  in  fact  we  find  not  a  few  variations  in  the  text  and  indica- 
tions of  the  hand  of  an  editor  retouching  the  original  poems. 
Between  Psalm  xviii.  and  2  Samuel  xxii.  there  are  some 
seventy  variations  not  merely  orthographical.  The  Psalter 
itself  repeats  certain  poems  with  changes.  Psalm  liii.  is  a 
copy  of  Ps.  xiv.  with  variations  of  text ;  Psalm  Ixx.  repeats 
Ps.  xl.  13-17 ;  Ps.  cviii.  is  verses  7-11  of  Ps.  Ivii.,  followed 
by  Ps.  Ix.  5-12.  Another  clear  sign  that  we  have  not  every 
Psalm  in  its  original  text  lies  in  the  alphabetical  acrostics. 
Psalms  ix.-x.  xxv.  xxxiv.  xxxvii.  cxi.  cxii.  cxix.  cxlv.,  in 
which  the  initial  letters  of  successive  half  verses,  verses,  or 
larger  stanzas  make  up  the  alphabet.  It  is  of  the  nature  of 
an  acrostic  to  be  perfect.  An  acrostic  poem  which  misses 
some  letter  or  puts  it  in  a  false  place  is  a  failure ;  and  there- 
fore, when  we  find  that  some  of  these  acrostics  are  now 
incomplete,  we  must  conclude  that  the  text  has  suffered.  In 
some  cases  it  is  still  easy  to  suggest  the  slight  change  neces- 
sary to  restore  the  original  scheme.  Elsewhere,  as  in  the 
beautiful  acrostic  now  reckoned  as  two  Psalms  (ix.  and  x.), 
the  corruption  in  the  text,  or  possibly  the  intentional  change 
made  to  adapt  the  poem  for  public  worship,  is  so  considerable 
that  the  original  form  cannot  be  recovered.-^ 

^  Another  case  where  one  Psalm  has  been  made  two  is  xlii.-xliii.,  where, 
by  taking  the  words  "  0  my  God  "  from  the  beginning  of  xlii.  6  to  the  end  of 

n 


194  DIVISIONS    OF  LECT.  VII 

In  general,  then,  we  conclude  that  the  oldest  text  of  a 
sacred  lyric  is  not  always  preserved  in  the  Psalter.  And  so, 
again,  we  must  not  suppose  that  the  notes  of  authors'  names 
in  a  hymn-book  have  the  same  weight  as  the  statements  of 
an  historical  book.  In  a  liturgical  collection  the  author's 
name  is  of  little  consequence,  and  the  editors  who  altered  the 
text  of  a  poem  cannot  be  assumed  o.  priori  to  have  taken 
absolute  care  to  preserve  a  correct  record  of  its  origin.  But 
to  this  subject  we  shall  recur  presently. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  collection  somewhat  more  closely ; 
and,  in  the  first  place,  let  us  take  note  of  the  traditional 
division  of  the  Psalter  into  five  smaller  books,  each  terminat- 
ing with  a  doxology.  In  most  modern  Hebrew  Bibles,  and 
also  in  the  English  Kevised  Version,  the  five  books  are 
marked  off  by  short  titles,  which  are  not  found  in  most  manu- 
scripts, are  devoid  of  Massoretic  authority,  and  are  rightly 
absent  from  the  Authorised  Version.  But  the  division  itself 
rests  on  an  ancient  Jewish  tradition  which  was  already 
known  to  Hippolytus  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  Christian 
century.  Mediaeval  Jewish  opinion,  following  the  Midrash 
on  Psalm  i.,  ascribed  the  partition  to  David,  and  the  majority 
of  modern  scholars  regard  the  terminal  doxologies  (which  are 
also  found  in  the  Septuagint)  as  sufficient  evidence  that  a 
fivefold  arrangement  of  the  Psalter,  presumably  on  the 
model  of  the  Pentateuch,  was  actually  designed  by  the  col- 
lector of  the  book.-^     Before  we  discuss  how  far  this  opinion 

the  previous  verse,  and  making  a  single  change  in  the  division  of  the  -words, 
we  get  a  poem  of  three  stanzas,  with  an  identical  refrain  to  each.  Conversely 
Ps.  cxliv.  12  sqq.  seems  to  have  no  connection  with  the  poem  (verses  1-11)  to 
which  it  is  now  attached. 

^  The  witness  of  Hippolytus  is  found  in  the  Greek  (ed.  Lag.,  p.  193  ; 
closely  followed  by  Epiphanius,  De  Mens,  et  Pond.  §  5  ;  see  Lagarde,  Sym- 
niicta,  ii.  157),  in  a  passage  of  which  the  genuineness  has  been  questioned  ; 
but  the  same  doubt  does  not  attach  to  the  Syriac  form  of  Hippolytus's  testi- 
mony (Lagarde,  Analeda  Syriaca,  1858,  p.  86).  The  Greek  sjieaks  of  a 
division  into  five  books  {^t^Xla),  the  Syriac  of  five  parts  or  sections  {menaicdthe). 
The  latter  expression  agrees  best  with  Jerome's  statement  in  the  Prologus 


THE    PSALTER  195 


is  sound  it  will  be  convenient  to  present  a  table  sliowino- 
the  scheme  of  the  traditional  division  : — 

Book  I.  Psalms  1-41. — All  ascribed  to  David,  except  1,  2,  10  [whicli 

is  part  of  9],  33  [ascribed  to  David  in  the  LXX.]     Boxology 

Blessed  be  Joliovali,  God  of  Israel,  from  everlasting  and  to  ever- 
lastiiiLf.      Amen  and  Amen. 

Book  II.  Psalms  42-72.-42-49,  Koraliite  [43  being  part  of  42]  ;  50, 
Asapli  ;  51-71,  David,  except  66,  67,  71,  which  are  anonymous  ; 
72,  Solomon.  Doxology — Blessed  be  Jeliovah  God,  the  God  of 
Israel,  who  alone  doeth  wondrous  things.  And  blessed  be  His 
name  of  glory  for  ever  :  and  let  the  M-hole  earth  be  filled  with 
His  glory.  Amen  and  Amen.  SuhscrijJtion — The  prayers  of 
David  the  son  of  Jesse  are  ended. 

Book  III.  Psalms  73-89.-73-83,  Asaph;  84,  85,  87,  88,  Koraliite; 
86,  David  ;  88,  Heman  ;  89,  Ethan.  Doxology — Blessed  be 
Jehovah  for  ever.     Amen  and  Amen. 

Book  IV.  Psalms  90-106.— 90,  Moses;  101,  103,  David;  the  rest 
anonymous.  Doxology — Blessed  be  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel,  from 
everlasting  and  to  everlasting.  And  let  all  the  x>eople  say,  Amen  : 
Hallelujah. 

Galeatus,  "David,  quem  quinque  incisionibus  et  uno  vohmiine  compre- 
hendunt "  [scil.  Hebraei].  In  the  Preface  to  his  PsaU.  iuxta  Hchraeos  Jerome 
refuses  to  allow  the  expression  "five  books,"  which  some  used.  For  the 
Jewish  recognition  of  the  fivefold  partition  of  the  Psalter  most  writers  refer 
only  to  the  later  Midrash  on  the  Psalms,  from  Avhich  Kimchi  draws  in  the 
Preface  to  his  Commentary.  But  there  is  much  older  Jewish  evidence  to 
confirm  that  of  the  Christian  authorities.  Mr.  Schechter  refers  me  to  B. 
Kiddiishin,  33  a,  where  R,  Simeon,  son  of  Eabbi,  says,  complaining  of  a  pupil, 
"I  taught  him  two-fifths  of  the  Book  of  Psalms,  and  he  did  not  rise  up  Ijefore 
me  (out  of  respect  when  I  entered  the  place  where  he  was  seated)."  The 
expression  "fifths"  is  commonly  used  of  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  it 
occurs  also  in  J.  MegiUah,  ii.  4,  in  connection  Avith  the  Book  of  Esther 
(Midler,  Sojjherim,  p.  34),  and  is  not  a  sufficient  justification  for  speaking  of 
five  books  (D'''12D)  of  the  Psalms.  In  S62ihcrim,  ii.  4,  where  a  blank  of  four 
lines  is  prescribed  between  each  book  of  the  Torah,  and  a  blank  of  three 
lines  between  each  of  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets,  nothing  is  said  of  the 
sections  of  the  Psalter.  There  are,  however,  traces  of  a  later  rule  by  which 
two  lines  are  to  be  left  between  each  section  of  the  Psalms ;  but  the  rule  is 
very  imperfectly  followed  in  MSS.  The  first  Massoretic  Bible  (that  of  Jacob 
b.  Chayyim)  notes  the  commencement  of  Bks.  2,  3,  4,  5  in  the  margin,  or  in 
vacant  spaces  in  the  text,  in  smaller  characters  C^C  1DD  and  so  forth),  and 
similar  titles  are  found  in  some  MSS. 

We  learn  from  Hippolytus  and  Jerome  that  the  doxologies,  or  rather  the 
double  Amen  of  the  doxologies,  furnished  the  argument  for  the  fivefold 
division.  In  Ps.  cvi,  48  Jerome  appears  to  have  read  a  double  yhoiTo  in  the 
Greek  (as  many  ilSS.  do),  and  also  (against  the  present  ]\Iassoretic  text)  a 
double  pX  in  the  Hebrew.     (See  the  critical  apparatus  in  Lagarde's  edition.) 


196  DIVISIONS   OF  LECT.  VII 

Book  V.  Psalms  107-150.— 108-110,  122,i  124,i  131/  133,1  138-145, 
David;  1 2  7,^  Solomon  ;  120-134,  Pilgrimage  songs.  The  book 
closes  with  a  group  of  doxological  Psalms,  but  there  is  no  such 
special  doxology  as  in  the  previous  books. 

The  first  three  doxologies  plainly  form  no  part  of  the 
Psalms  to  which  they  are  attached,  but  mark  the  end  of  each 
book  after  the  pious  fashion,  not  uncommon  in  Eastern  litera- 
ture, to  close  the  composition  or  transcription  of  a  volume 
with  a  brief  prayer  or  words  of  praise.  In  Psalm  cvi.  the 
case  is  different.  For  here  we  find  a  liturgical  direction  that 
all  the  people  shall  say,  "Amen,  Hallelujah,"  which  seems  to 
imply  that  this  doxology  was  actually  sung  at  the  close  of 
the  Psalm.  And  so  it  is  taken  in  1  Chron.  xvi.,  where  the 
Psalm  is  quoted.  For  here  (ver.  36)  the  imperatives  are 
changed  to  perfects,  "and  all  the  people  said,  Amen,  and 
praised  the  Lord." 

This  essential  difference  in  character  between  the  three 
first  doxologies  and  the  fourth  appears  to  be  fatal  to  the 
theory  that  the  collector  of  the  whole  Psalter  disposed  his 
work  in  five  sections,  and  added  a  doxology  to  each.  Nor 
can  this  theory  be  mended  by  joining  Books  IV.  and  V.,  and 
supposing  the  collector  to  have  aimed  at  a  fourfold  division. 
For  it  is  not  conceivable  that,  after  writing  formal  doxologies 
to  three  sections  of  his  work,  the  collector  would  have  left 
the  close  of  the  whole  Psalter  unprovided  with  a  similar 
formula.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  three  first  doxolo- 
gies are  older  than  the  final  collection  ;  and,  as  they  evidently 
mark  actual  subdivisions  in  the  Psalm-book,  it  naturally 
occurs  to  us  to  inquire  whether  these  subdivisions  are  not 
the  boundaries  of  earlier  collections,  of  which  the  first  three 
books  of  our  present  Psalter  are  made  up.^ 

^  Not  so  in  LXX. 

"  An  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  the  limits  of  an  older  collection  may 
be  revealed  by  the  retention  of  the  doxological  subscription  is  supplied  by  the 
Diwan  of  the  Hodhalite  poets.     At  the  close  of  the  236th  poem  (according  to 


LECT.  VII  THE    PSALTER  197 

A  closer  examination  confirms  this  conjecture.  The  first 
book,  Psalms  i.-xli.,  is  all  Davidic,  every  Psalm  bearing  the 
title  of  David  except  Psalms  i.  ii.  x.  xxxiii.  Now  Psalm  i. 
is  clearly  a  preface  to  the  collection.  But  in  Talmudic  times 
Psalm  ii.  was  reckoned  as  forming  one  section  with  Psalm  i., 
and  so  it  is  actually  cited  as  the  first  Psalm  in  the  correct 
text  of  Acts  xiii.  33.  Again,  Psalm  x.  is  the  second  part  of 
the  acrostic  Psalm  ix.,  and  Psalm  xxxiii.  is  certainly  a  late 
piece,  and  probably  came  into  this  part  of  the  Psalter  after- 
wards. The  first  book,  therefore,  is  a  formal  collection  of 
Psalms  ascribed  to  David.  So,  again,  in  the  second  book,  the 
Psalms  ascribed  to  David  stand  apart  from  the  Korahite  and 
Asaphic  Psalms,  and  form  a  connected  group,  though  they 
include  some  anonymous  pieces,  and  also  one  hymn  (Psalm 
Ixxii.),  which  is  entitled  "of  Solomon,"  but  was  perhaps 
viewed,  as  our  version  takes  it,  as  a  prayer  of  David  for  his 
son.  In  Book  III.  only  Psalm  Ixxxvi.  bears  the  name  of 
David,  and  this  title  is  unquestionably  a  mistake,  for  the 
Psalm  is  a  mere  cento  of  reminiscences  from  older  parts  of 
Scripture,  and  the  prayer  in  verse  11,  "  Unite  my  heart  to 
fear  thy  name,"  is  based  on  the  promise  (Jer.  xxxii.  39),  "  I 
will  give  them  one  heart  ...  to  fear  me  continually."  It  is 
the  law  of  the  religious  life  that  prayer  is  based  on  promise, 
and  not  conversely.^  It  cannot  be  accident  that  has  thus 
disposed  the  Davidic  Psalms  of  Books  I.-III.  in  two  groups. 
But  if  the  final  collector  had  gathered  these  poems  together 
for  the  first  time,  he  would  surely  have  made  one  group,  not 
two.  Nor  can  he  have  added  the  subscription  to  Psalm 
Ixxii.,  "  The  prayers  of  David  are  ended,"  unless,  indeed,  we 
suppose  that  the  titles  ascribing  Psalms  of  the  fourth  and 
fifth  books  to  David  are  all  additions  of  later  copyists  after 

"Wellhausen's  enumeration)  occurs  the  subscription,  tamma  hddhd  walilldhi 
'l-hamdu,  etc.,  showing  that  the  collection  once  ended  at  this  point. 
^  See  additional  Note  C. 


198  THE    ELOHISTIC  lect.  vii 

the  collection  was  closed.  AVe  conclude,  then,  that  the  first 
book  once  existed  as  a  separate  collection,  and  that  the  sub- 
scription to  Psalm  Ixxii.,  with  the  doxology,  marks  the  close 
of  another  once  separate  collection  of  Davidic  Psalms. 

Another  evidence  that  the  first  three  books  of  the  Psalter 
contain  collections  formed  by  more  than  one  editor,  lies  in 
the  names  of  God.  Books  I.  IV.  and  V.  of  the  Psalter  use 
the  names  of  God  in  the  same  way  as  most  other  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament,  where  Jehovah  is  the  prevailing  term,  and 
other  names,  such  as  Elohim  (God),  occur  less  frequently. 
But  in  the  greater  part  of  Books  II.  and  III.  (Psalms  xlii.- 
Ixxxiii.)  the  name  of  Jehovah  is  rare,  and  Elohim  takes  its 
place  even  where  the  substitute  reads  very  awkwardly. 
For  example,  a  common  Old  Testament  phrase  is  "  Jehovah 
my  God,"  "Jehovah  thy  God,"  based  upon  Exodus  xx.  2, 
where,  in  the  preface  to  the  Ten  Commandments,  we  have,  "  I 
am  Jehovah  thy  God."  Some  later  writers  seem  to  have 
avoided  the  name  Jehovah,  in  accordance  with  a  tendency 
which  ultimately  became  so  prevalent  among  the  Jews  that 
they  now  never  pronounce  the  word  Jehovah  (lahwe),  but 
read  Adonai  (Lord)  in  its  place  {supra,  p.  77).  Such  writers 
do  not  use  the  phrase  "  Jehovah  my  God,"  but  simply  say, 
"my  God."  In  the  Elohim  Psalms,  however,  and  nowhere 
else  in  the  Old  Testament,  we  find  the  peculiar  phrase  "  God 
my  God,"  with  Elohim  in  place  of  Jehovah.  And  so,  even 
in  Psalm  1.  7,  where  the  words  of  Exodus  xx.  2  are  actually 
quoted,  we  read  "  I  am  God  thy  God."  Clearly  this  is  no 
accident.  The  Psalms  in  which  the  name  Elohim  is  habitu- 
ally used  instead  of  Jehovah  hang  together.  And,  when  we 
look  more  closely  at  the  matter,  we  see  that  they  not  only 
hang  together,  but  that  the  phenomenon  of  the  names  of  God 
is  due,  not  to  the  original  authors  of  the  Psalms,  but  to  the 
collector  himself;  for  some  of  these  Elohim  Psalms  occur 
also  in  the  earlier  Jehovistic  part  of  the  Psalter.     Psalm  liii. 


COLLECTION  199 


is  identical  with  Psalm  xiv. ;  Psalm  Ixx.  with  part  of  Psalm 
xl. ;  and  here,  among  other  variations  of  text,  we  find  Jehovah 
six  times  changed  to  Elohim,  and  only  one  converse  change. 
That  is  a  clear  proof  that  the  Elohim  Psalms  have  been 
formed  by  an  editor  who,  for  some  reason,  preferred  to  sup- 
press, as  far  as  possible,  the  name  Jehovah. 

!N'ow  let  us  look  a  little  more  closely  at  this  Elohistic 
collection.  It  forms  the  main  part  of  the  second  and  third 
Psalm-books.  The  Psalms  that  remain  look  like  an  appendix, 
containing  some  supplementary  Korahite  Psalms,  and  one 
Psalm  ascribed  to  David,  which  we  have  seen  to  be  late,  and 
which  may  fairly  be  judged  to  be  no  part  of  the  original 
Davidic  collections.  If  we  set  the  appendix  on  one  side,  we 
find  in  Books  II.  and  III.  a  single  Elohistic  collection  with  a 
well-marked  editorial  peculiarity  running  through  it.  This 
Elohistic  Psalm-book  consists  of  two  kinds  of  elements.  It 
contains,  in  the  first  place,  Levitical  Psalms — that  is,  Psalms 
ascribed  to  Levitical  choirs,  the  sons  of  Korah  and  Asaph ; 
and,  further,  a  collection  of  Davidic  Psalms,  marked  off  as  a 
distinct  section  by  the  subscription  at  the  end  of  Psalm  Ixxii. 
and  the  accompanying  doxology.  As  now  arranged,  tlie 
Davidic  collection  is  wedged  in  between  two  masses  of  Levi- 
tical Psalms,  and  even  separates  the  Asaphic  Psalm  1.  from 
the  body  of  the  Asaphic  collection,  Psalms  Ixxiii.-lxxxiii.  It 
is  not  probable  that  this  was  the  original  order,  for  if  we 
simply  take  Psalms  xlii.-L,  and  lift  them  into  the  place  be- 
tween Psalms  Ixxii.  and  Ixxiii.,  we  get  a  complete  and  natural 
arrangement.  We  thus  have  a  book  containing,  first,  a 
collection  of  Davidic  Psalms  w4th  a  subscription,  and  then 
two  collections  of  Levitical  Psalms,  the  first  Korahitic  and 
the  last  Asaphic.  We  may  fairly  accept  this  as  the  older 
arrangement,  which  possibly  was  changed  by  the  final  col- 
lector in  order  that  he  might  show  by  a  distinct  mark  that  the 
two  Davidic  collections  in  his  work  were  originally  separate. 


200  STRUCTURE    OF 


Perhaps,  also,  he  ma}^  liave  been  influenced  by  the  fact  that 
Psalms  1.  and  li.  are  both  suitable  for  the  service  of  sacrifices 
of  praise.  Such  is  the  account  it  seems  reasonable  to  give  of 
Books  11.  and  III. 

We  come  next  to  Books  IV.  and  Y.  They  also  are  really 
one  book,  for  the  doxology  of  Psalm  cvi.  belongs  to  the  Psalm, 
and  there  is  no  clear  mark  of  difference  in  subject,  character, 
or  editorial  treatment  in  the  Psalms  which  precede  and  follow 
it.  But,  taken  as  a  unity,  Books  IV.  and  V.  are  marked  by  a 
liturgical  character  more  predominant  than  in  the  other  books. 
They  are  also  of  later  collection  than  the  Elohistic  Psalm- 
book,  for  Psalm  cviii.  is  made  up  of  two  Elohim  Psalms  (Ivii. 
7-11,  Ix.  5-12),  retaining  the  predominant  use  of  Elohim,  al- 
though the  other  Psalms  of  the  last  two  books  are  Jehovistic. 
As  the  Elohim  Psalms  got  their  peculiar  use  of  the  names  of 
God  from  the  collector,  and  not  from  their  authors,  we  may 
safely  affirm  that  Books  II.  and  III.  existed  in  their  collected 
form  before  Psalm  cviii.  was  composed. 

Thus  the  five  books  of  the  Psalms  reduce  themselves  to 
three  collections  (with  subdivisions  in  the  case  of  the  second), 
which  may  be  thus  exhibited  in  tabular  form : — 

First  Collection 

(Bk.  I.)  David  Pss.  1-41 

Doxology 

Second  Collection 
(Bks.  IT.  and  III.) 


Part  i.        David  Pss.  51-72 

Doxology  and  Subscription  f  ELOHIM 


Part  ii.  a.  Korah  Pss.  42-49  [     Psalms 

b.  Asaph  Pss.  50,  73-83  j 

Appendix.    Miscellaneous  Ps.  84-89 
Doxology 

TJiird  Collection 

(Bks.  IV.  and  V.)     Mainly  Anonymous  Ps.  90-150 


LECT.  VII  THE    PSALTER  201 

In  accordance  with  these  results  we  can  distinguish  the 
following  steps  in  the  redaction  : — 

(a)  The   formation  of  the  first  Davichc  collection  with  a  closing 

doxology  (1-41). 
(h)  The  formation  of  the  second  Davidic  collection,  with  doxology 

and  subscription  (51-72). 
(c)  The  formation  of  a  twofold  Levitical  collection  (42-49  ;  50, 

73-83). 
{d)  An  Elohistic  redaction  and  combination  of  (b)  and  (c). 
(e)  The  addition  to  (d)  of  a  non-Elohistic  supplement  and  doxology 

(84-89). 
(/)  The  formation  of  the  Third  Collection  (90-149). 

Finally,  the  anonymous  Psalms  i.  and  ii.  may  have  been 
prefixed  after  the  whole  Psalter  was  completed. 

A  process  of  collection  which  involves  so  many  stages 
must  plainly  have  taken  a  considerable  time,  and  the 
question  arises  whether  we  can  fix  a  limit  for  its  beginning 
and  end,  or  can  assign  a  date  for  any  particular  stages  of 
the  process. 

An  inferior  limit  for  the  final  form  of  the  collection  is 
given  by  the  Septuagint  translation.  But  the  traditions 
examined  in  Lecture  IV.,  which  fix  the  middle  of  the  third 
century  B.C.  as  the  probable  date  of  the  Greek  translation  of 
the  Law,  tell  us  nothing  about  the  translation  of  the  Hagio- 
grapha.  We  know,  however,  from  the  prologue  to  Ecclesi- 
asticus  that  certain  Hagiographa,  and  doubtless,  therefore,  the 
Psalter,  were  current  in  Egypt  in  a  Greek  version  about  130 
B.C.  or  a  little  later.  And  the  Greek  Psalter,  though  it  adds 
one  apocryphal  Psalm  at  the  end,  is  essentially  the  same  as 
the  Hebrew  ;  there  is  nothing  to  suggest  that  the  Greek  was 
first  translated  from  a  less  complete  Psalter  and  afterwards 
extended  to  agree  with  the  received  Hebrew.  It  is  therefore 
reasonable  to  hold  that  the  Hebrew  Psalter  was  completed 
and  recognised  as  an  authoritative  collection  long  enough 
before  130  B.C.  to  allow  of  its  passing  to  the  Hellenistic  Jews 


202 


THE    TITLES 


of  Alexandria.  There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  unambiguous 
external  evidence  to  carry  the  close  of  the  collection  farther 
back  than  this.  For  though  1  Chron.  xvi.  and  2  Chron.  vi.  41, 
42,  contain  a  series  of  passages  from  Psalms  of  the  Third  Col- 
lection (Pss.  xcvi.  cv.  cvi.  cxxxii.),  there  is  no  proof  that  the 
Chronicler  read  these  hymns  in  their  place  in  the  present  Psalter, 
or  even  that  in  his  days  Ps.  cvi.  existed  in  its  present  form. 

In  this  scarcity  of  external  evidence  we  are  thrown  back 
on  internal  indications,  and  above  all  on  the  evidence  of  the 
titles.  But  here  you  must  permit  me  to  draw  a  distinction.  We 
have  already  seen  [siiiora,  p.  95  s^'^'.)  that  there  are  variations 
between  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  tradition  of  the  titles,  and 
that  there  was  among  the  later  Jews  a  marked  tendency  to 
attach  known  and  famous  names  to  anonymous  pieces.  The 
titles,  therefore,  viewed  as  evidence  to  the  authorship  of 
individual  Psalms,  are  not  to  be  accepted  without  reserve. 
But  the  use  which  I  now  propose  to  make  of  them  is  of 
another  kind.  Except  in  the  Third  Collection,  where  ano- 
nymity is  the  rule,  authors'  names  occurring  only  spora- 
dically, and  in  the  appendix  to  the  Second  Collection,  which 
has  a  miscellaneous  character,  the  titles  run  in  series  and 
correspond  very  closely  with  the  limits  of  the  old  collections 
of  Psalms  of  which  the  present  Psalter  is  made  up.  It  is 
plain  that  such  connected  series  of  titles  have  quite  a 
different  value  from  the  scattered  titles  in  the  last  division 
of,  the  Psalter.  They  form  a  system,  and  cannot  be  looked 
upon  as  the  arbitrary  conjectures  of  successive  copyists. 
To  doubt  that  the  consecutive  Psalms  xlii.-xlix.,  each  of  which 
bears  a  title  assigning  it  to  the  sons  of  Korah,  or  the  Psalms 
Ixxiii.-lxxxiii.,  which  are  similarly  assigned  to  Asaph,  hang 
together,  would  be  irrational  scepticism.  By  far  the  most 
probable  view  is  that  each  of  the  groups,  with  the  addition 
in  the  case  of  the  Asaphic  Psalms  of  the  now  disjoined 
Psalm  1.,  once  formed  separate  hymn-books,  bearing  a  general 


OF    THE    PSALMS 


title,  which  in  the  one  case  \vas  "of  the  sons  of  Ivorah," 
and  in  the  other  "of  Asaph."  When  these  small  hynni- 
books  were  merged  in  a  larger  collection  it  would  obviously 
be  convenient  to  repeat  tlie  title  before  each  I'sahn.  Apart 
from  its  general  plausibility,  this  conjecture  derives  strong 
support  from  the  series  of  fifteen  Psalms,  cxx.-cxxxiv.,  which 
bear  in  the  Authorised  Version  the  title  of  Songs  of  Degrees. 
According  to  the  Mishna  {Mlddoth,  ii.  5)  and  other  Jewish 
traditions,  these  Psalms  were  sung  by  the  Levites,  at  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  on  the  fifteen  steps  or  degrees  that 
led  from  the  women's  to  the  men's  court  of  the  Temple. 
But  when  we  read  the  Psalms  themselves,  we  see  that 
originally  they  must  have  been  sung  not  by  Levites  but 
by  the  laymen  who  came  up  to  Jerusalem  at  the  great 
feasts;  and  the  word  which  Jewish  tradition  renders  by 
"degree"  or  "step"  ought  rather  to  be  translated  "going 
up"  to  Jerusalem  (cf.  the  Hebrew  of  Ezra  vii.  9),  so  that 
the  Songs  of  Degrees  ought  rather  to  be  called  "  Pilgrimage 
Sonets."  But  now  the  curious  thincj  is  that,  accordincj  to 
the  laws  of  Hebrew  grammar,  the  title  prefixed  to  each 
of  these  hymns  must  be  translated  not  "  a  song  of  Pilgrim- 
asre,"  but  "the  soughs  of  Pils^rimaoe,"  In  other  words,  each 
title  is  properly  the  collective  title  of  the  whole  fifteen 
Psalms,  which  must  once  have  formed  a  separate  hymnal 
for  the  use  of  pilgrims ;  and  when  the  collection  was  taken 
into  the  greater  Psalter,  this  general  title  was  set  at  the 
head  of  each  of  the  hymns. 

I  take  it,  then,  the  Asaph  and  Korah  Psalms  were  at  one 
time  the  hynni-books  of  two  Levitical  choirs  or  guilds.  In 
all  probability  the  titles  tell  us  no  more  than  this  ;  they  do 
not  name  the  authors  of  the  Psalms,  but  they  refer  us  to 
a  period  when  the  Temple  psalmody  was  in  the  hands  of 
two  hereditary  choirs,  which,  after  the  fashion  of  ancient 
Eastern   guilds,   called   themselves   sons   of  Asaph   and   of 


204  THE    GUILDS    OF  lect.  vii 

Korah  respectively.  Now  in  the  time  of  the  Chronicler, 
who  (as  we  have  seen  in  Lecture  Y.)  describes  the  ordin- 
ances of  his  own  time  in  what  he  tells  ns  about  the 
Temple  music,  there  were  not  two  Levitical  guilds  but 
three,  named  not  after  Asaph  and  Korah,  but  after  Asaph, 
Heman,  and  Ethan  (1  Chron.  vi.  31  sqg^.),  or  Asaph,  Heman, 
and  Jeduthun  (1  Chron.  xxv.  1).  These  three  guilds  were 
reckoned  to  the  three  great  Levitical  houses  of  Gershon, 
Kohath,  and  Merari,  and  the  genealogy  of  Heman  was 
traced  to  Kohath  through  Korah.  But  in  the  time  of  the 
Chronicler  the  name  of  Korahites  designated  a  guild  not 
of  singers  but  of  porters  (1  Chron.  ix.  19,  xxvi.  1,  19). 
The  Chronicler  assumes  that  this  organisation  of  the  singers 
dated  from  David ;  but  in  reality  it  was  quite  modern. 
At  the  time  of  the  first  return  from  the  Exile  "singers" 
and  "  sons  of  Asaph "  were  equivalent  terms  (Ezra  ii.  41  ; 
Neh.  vii.  44),  and  the  singers  were  distinct  from  the 
Levites.  This  distinction  seems  still  to  have  been  recog- 
nised nearly  a  century  later,  in  the  days  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  (Ezra  x.  23,  24 ;  Neh.  vii.  1,  73,  etc.).  But  by 
this  time  the  distinction  had  lost  the  greater  jDart  of  its 
meaning;  for  at  the  dedication  of  Nehemiah's  wall  (Neh. 
xii.  27,  28)  the  musical  service  was  divided  between  the 
Levites  and  the  "sons  of  the  singers,"  i.e.  the  Asaphites. 
From  this  there  is  only  a  step  to  the  order  of  the  Elohistic 
Psalm-book,  where  there  are  two  guilds  of  singers,  the 
Asaphites  and  the  sons  of  Korah.-^      But  the  first  unam- 

^  The  oldest  attempt  to  incorporate  the  Asaphites  with  the  Levites  seems 
to  be  found  in  the  priestly  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  where  Abiasaph,  "  the  father 
of  Asaph,"'or  in  other  words,  the  eponym  of  the  Asaphite  guild,  is  made  one  of 
the  three  sons  of  Korah  (Exod.  vi.  24).  In  the  ultimate  system  of  Levitical 
organisation  Asaph  belongs  not  to  Korah  and  Kohath  but  to  Gershon 
(1  Chron.  vi.).  In  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  the  singers,  like  the  porters  and  the 
Nethinim,  are  habitually  named  after  the  Levites,  as  an  inferior  class  of 
Temple  ministers.  In  the  time  of  the  Chronicler  this  inferiority  has  disap- 
peared, and  ultimately,  in  the  last  days  of  the  Temple,  the  singers  claimed. 


LECT.  vii  TEMPLE    SINGERS  205 

biguous  appearance  of  three  guilds  of  singers  is  found  in 
Nell.  xii.  24,  in  a  passage  which  does  not  belong  to  ISTehe- 
miah's  memoirs,  and  refers  to  the  time  of  Darius  Codomannus 
and  of  Jaddua,  the  high  priest  contemporary  with  Alexander 
the  Great.-^  The  legitimate  inference  from  these  facts 
appears  to  be  that  the  Asaphic  and  Korahitic  Psalms  were 
collected  for  use  in  the  Temple  service  between  the  time 
of  Xehemiah  and  the  fall  of  the  Persian  empire,  or,  speaking 
broadly,  in  the  second  century  after  the  return  from  Babylon 
{circa  430-330  B.C.).  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  formation 
of  the  Elohistic  Psalter,  in  which  the  two  Levitical  hymn- 
books  are  fused  together  with  a  non- Levitical  book  (the 
second  Davidic  collection),  may  be  connected  with  the  re- 
modelling of  the  singers  in  three  choirs;  at  any  rate,  the 
appendix  with  which  the  Second  Collection  closes  already 
presupposes  the  new  order,  for  Heman  and  Ethan  are  men- 
tioned in  the  titles  of  Pss.  Ixxxviii.  Ixxxix. 

The  contents  of  the  Korah  and  Asaph  Psalms  agree  well, 
on  the  whole,  with  these  conclusions.  We  must  bear  in 
mind  that  a  Psalm  may  have  been  written  long  before  it  was 
taken  into  one  of  the  Temple  hymn-books,  and  that  two 
Levitical  Psalms,  liii.  and  Ixx.,  actually  repeat,  in  Elohistic 
form,  pieces  that  appear  also  in  the  Eirst  Collection.  But 
the  very  fact  that  there  was  an  older  collection,  and  that  only 
two  pieces  in  it  reappear  in  the  Second  Collection,  makes  it 
probable  that  most  of  the  Levitical  Psalms  belong  to  the 
period  of  the  two  choirs,   i.e.  to  the   time   between  Ezra's 

and  obtained  from  Agrippa  II.,  the  privilege  of  wearing  garments  of  priestly 
linen  (Jos.  Antt.  xx.  9,  §  6). 

^  The  threefold  division  of  singers  appears  in  the  Hebrew  text  of  Neh.  xi. 
17,  in  a  list  which  is  not  part  of  Nehemiah's  memoirs,  but  is  probably  older 
than  chap.  xii.  22-26.  But  the  Septuagint  does  not  give  the  triple  division, 
and  the  mention  of  Jeduthun  as  a  man  instead  of  a  musical  term  is  not  in 
favour  of  the  Hebrew  form  of  the  text.  The  term  sons  of  Korah,  as  designat- 
ing a  guild  of  singers,  was  evidently  obsolete  in  the  Chronicler's  time,  but  was 
still  used  in  the  ilidrashic  source  of  2  Chron.  xx.  19  ;  cf.  verse  14,  where  the 
sons  of  Asaph  are  also  mentioned. 


206  CHARACTERISTICS    OF  lect.  vii 

reformation  and  the  Greek  Conquest  of  Asia.  And  this 
presumption  is  in  accord  with  the  general  character  of  the 
Psalms  in  question.  One  of  the  most  remarkable  features 
common  to  the  Asapli  and  Korah  Psalms  is  that  they  contain 
little  or  no  recognition  of  present  national  sin, — though  they 
confess  the  sins  of  Israel  in  the  past — but  are  exercised  with 
the  observation  that  prosperity  does  not  follow  righteousness 
either  in  the  case  of  the  individual  (xlix.,  Ixxiii.)  or  in  that 
of  the  nation,  which  suffers  notwithstanding  its  loyalty  to 
God,  or  even  on  account  thereof.  ISlow  problems  about 
God's  righteousness  as  it  appears  in  his  dealings  with  in- 
dividual men  first  emercje  in  the  Books  of  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel,  while  the  confident  assertion  of  national  riojhteous- 
ness  is  a  characteristic  mark  of  pious  Judaism  from  the  time 
of  Ezra  downwards,  when  the  Pentateuchal  Law  was  practi- 
cally enforced,  but  not  earlier.  Malachi,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah, 
like  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  are  still  far  from  holding  that  the 
national  sins  of  Israel  lie  all  in  the  past.^  It  was  only  after 
the  great  reformation  of  444  B.C.  that  the  pious  Israelite 
could  say,  what  is  said  in  Psalm  xliv.  and  practically  repeated 
elsewhere,  that  the  people,  in  spite  of  their  afflictions,  have 
not  forgotten  God  or  been  false  to  his  covenant,  that  they  are 
persecuted  not  because  of  their  sins  but  for  God's  sake  and 
because  of  their  adherence  to  Him. 

Tiius  far  the  contents  of  the  Levitical  Psalms  are  entirely 
consistent  with  the  conclusion  as  to  the  date  of  their  collection 
indicated  by  the  titles.  The  mass  of  these  Psalms  cannot  be 
earlier  than  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  when  Israel  first 
became  a  law-abiding  people.     But  when  we  seek  to  fix  an  ^ 

^  In  Ezekiel's  time  the  people  complained  that  they  were  punished  for  the 
sins  of  their  fathers  (Ezek.  xviii.),  and  in  ^Malachi's  days  the  complaint  was 
heard  that  it  was  vain  to  serve  God,  and  that  there  was  no  profit  in  observing 
his  ordinances  (Mai.  iii.  14).  But  both  Ezekiel  and  Malachi  refuse  to  admit 
that  their  contemporaries  were  innocent  sufferers,  and  so  take  up  quite  a  dif- 
ferent standpoint  from  the  Levitical  Psalms. 


LECT.  VII  THE    LEVITICAL  PSALMS  207 

inferior  limit  for  the  collection  there  is  more  difficulty  in 
bringing  the  evidence  of  the  contents  into  harmony  with  the 
titles.  A  considerable  number  of  these  Psalms  (xliv.  Ixxiv. 
Ixxix.  Ixxx.)  point  to  an  historical  situation  which  can  be 
very  definitely  realised.  They  are  post-exile  in  their  whole 
tone,  and  belong  to  a  time  when  prophecy  had  ceased  and  the 
synagogue  worship  was  fully  established  (Ixxiv.  8,  9).  liut 
the  Jews  are  no  longer  the  obedient  slaves  of  Persia ;  there 
has  been  a  national  rising,  and  armies  have  gone  out  to  battle. 
Yet  God  has  not  gone  forth  with  them ;  the  heathen  have  been 
victorious ;  blood  has  flowed  like  water  round  Jerusalem  ;  the 
Temple  has  been  defiled ;  and  these  disasters  assume  the 
character  of  a  religious  persecution.  These  details  would  fit 
the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  to  which,  indeed,  Psalm 
Ixxiv.  is  referred  (as  a  prophecy)  in  1  Mac.  vii.  16  sci.  But 
against  this  reference  there  is  the  objection  that  if  these 
Psalms  are  of  the  age  of  the  Maccabees  they  can  have  been 
no  original  part  of  the  Elohistic  Psalter.  And  even  if  we 
suppose,  what  is  not  absolutely  inconceivable,  that  three  or 
four  pieces  were  inserted  among  the  Levitical  hymns  at  a 
later  date,  there  is  still  the  difficulty  that  these  Psalms  are 
written  in  a  time  of  deepest  dejection,  and  yet  are  Psalms  of 
the  Temple  choirs.  Now  when  the  Temple  was  reopened  for 
worship  after  its  profanation  by  Antiochus  the  Jews  were 
victorious,  and  a  much  more  joyous  tone  was  appropriate. 
On  the  whole,  therefore,  though  many  of  the  best  modern 
writers  on  the  I'salter  accept  a  Maccabee  date  at  least  for 
Pss.  xliv.  Ixxiv.  Ixxix.,  I  feel  a  difficulty  in  admitting  that 
any  of  these  pieces  is  later  than  the  Persian  period.  Our 
records  of  the  history  of  the  Jews  in  the  last  century  of 
Persian  rule  are  very  scanty;  but  we  know  that  under 
Artaxerxes  Ochus  {circa  350  B.C.)  there  was  a  widespread 
rebellion  in  Phoenicia  and  other  western  parts  of  the  empire, 
which  was  put   down  with  great   severity.      And  in   this 


208  PSALMS    OF   THE 


LECT.  VII 


rebellion  the  Jews  had  a  part,  for  many  of  them  were  led 
captive  by  the  Persian  king  and  planted  in  Hyrcania  on 
the  shores  of  the  Caspian.  That  the  rising  of  the  Jews 
against  Oclms  took  a  religious  character,  like  all  the  later 
rebellions  against  Greece  and  Eome,  is  highly  probable ; 
indeed  it  is  impossible  that  the  leaders  could  have  had  any 
other  programme  than  the  establishment  of  a  theocracy. 
The  desecration  of  the  Temple  referred  to  in  Psalm  Ixxiv.  is 
in  accordance  with  the  usual  practice  of  the  Persians  towards 
the  sanctuaries  of  their  enemies  ;  and  there  is  some  inde- 
pendent evidence  that  in  the  reign  of  Ochus  the  sanctity  of 
the  Temple  was  violated  by  the  Persians,  and  humiliating 
conditions  attached  to  the  worship  there.^ 

Let  us  next  consider  the  Third  Collection  (Bks.  IV.  and 
v.).  We  have  seen  that  this  collection  was  formed  after  the 
Elohistic  redaction  of  the  Second  Collection  {sui^ra,^.  200),  so 
that  if  our  argument  up  to  this  point  is  sound  the  last  part 
of  the  Psalter  must  be  thrown  into  the  Greek  period,  and 
probably  not  the  earliest  part  thereof.  This  conclusion  is 
borne  out  by  a  variety  of  indications.  First  of  all,  the 
language  of  some  of  the  Psalms  points  to  a  very  late  date 
indeed.  Even  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  the  speech  of  the 
Jews  was  in  danger  of  being  corrupted  by  the  dialects  of 
their  neighbours  (Neh.  xiii.  24),  but  the  restorers  of  the  law 
fought  against  this  tendency  with  vigour  and  with  so  much 
success  that  very  tolerable  Hebrew — coloured  by  Aramaic 
influences,  but  still  real  Hebrew — was  written  at  least  a 
century  later.  But  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  the  language  is  not  merely 
coloured  by  Aramaic,  it  is  a  jargon  of  Hebrew  and  Aramaic 
mixed  together ;  which  in  a  hymn  accepted  for  use  in  the 
Temple  shows  the  Hebrew  speech  to  have  reached  the  last 
stage  of  decay. 

Another  notable  feature  in  the  Third  Collection  is  the 

^  See  additional  Note  D. 


LECT.  VII  THIRD    COLLECTION  209 

entire  disappearance  of  the  musical  titles  "  upon  ISTeginoth," 
"  upon  Sheminith,"  and  so  forth,  which  are  so  frequent  in  the 
earlier  collections.  That  is  to  say,  the  old  technical  terms  of 
the  Temple  music  have  fallen  out  of  use,  presumably  because 
they  were  already  unintelligible,  as  they  were  to  the  Septua- 
gint  translators.  This  implies  a  revolution  in  the  national 
music,  and  is  probably  connected  with  that  influence  of 
Hellenic  culture  which  from  the  time  of  the  Macedonian 
conquest  began  to  work  such  changes  in  the  whole  civilisation 
and  art  of  the  East. 

A  curious  and  interesting  feature  in  the  musical  titles  in 
the  earlier  half  of  the  Psalter  is  that  many  of  them  indicate 
the  tune  to  which  the  Psalm  was  set,  by  quoting  phrases  like 
Aijeleth  [hash-Jshahar,  or  Jonath  elem  rechokim,  which  are 
evidently  the  names  of  familiar  songs. -^  Of  the  song  which 
gave  the  title  Al-taschith,  "Destroy  not,"  a  trace  is  still 
preserved  in  Isa.  Ixv.  8.  "When  the  new  wine  is  found  in 
the  cluster,"  says  the  prophet,  "  men  say, '  Destroy  it  not,  for  a 
blessing  is  in  it.'  "  These  words  in  the  Hebrew  have  a  distinct 
lyric  rhythm.  They  are  the  first  line  of  one  of  the  vintage 
songs  so  often  alluded  to  in  Scripture.  And  so  we  learn  that 
the  early  religious  melody  of  Israel  had  a  popular  origin,  and 
was  closely  connected  with  the  old  joyous  life  of  the  nation. 
In  the  time  when  the  last  books  of  the  Psalter  were  composed, 
the  Temple  music  had  passed  into  another  phase,  and  had 
differentiated  itself  from  the  melodies  of  the  people,  just  as 
we  should  no  loni]jer  think  of  using  as  church  music  the 
popular  airs  to  which  Psalms  and  hymns  were  set  in  Scotland 
at  the  time  of  the  Eeformation. 

^  Similarly  the  ancient  Syrian  hymn-writers  prefix  to  their  compositions 
such  musical  titles  as  "To  the  tune  of  ("al  qdld  dh')  '  I  will  open  my  mouth 
.with  knowledge.'"  See  the  hymns  of  EphriBm  passim.  The  same  usage  is 
found  in  the  fragments  of  Palestinian  hymnology  published  by  Land, 
Anecdota  Syriaca,  iv.  Ill  sqq.,  but  here  "to  the  tune  of"  is  expressed  by  the 
preposition  'al  alone.  The  titles  of  the  Hebrew  Psalms  also  use  the  simple 
preposition  'al,  but  even  this  is  sometimes  omitted. 

14 


210  PSALMS    OF    THE 


Turning,  now,  to  the  contents  of  Books  TV.  and  V.,  we  ob- 
serve that  the  general  tone  of  large  parts  of  this  collection  is 
much  more  cheerful  than  that  of  the  Elohistic  Psalm-book. 
It  begins  with  a  Psalm  (xc.)  ascribed  in  the  title  to  Moses, 
and  seemingly  designed  to  express  feelings  appropriate  to  a 
situation  analogous  to  that  of  the  Israelites  when,  after 
the  weary  march  through  the  wilderness,  they  stood  on  the 
borders  of  the  promised  land.  It  looks  back  on  a  time  of 
great  trouble  and  forward  to  a  brighter  future.  In  some 
of  the  following  Psalms  there  are  still  references  to  deeds 
of  oppression  and  violence,  but  more  generally  Israel  appears 
as  happy  under  the  law  with  such  a  happiness  as  it  did  enjoy 
under  the  Ptolemies  during  the  third  century  B.C.  The  problems 
of  divine  justice  are  no  longer  burning  questions ;  the  right- 
eousness of  God  is  seen  in  the  peaceful  felicity  of  the  pious 
(xci.  xcii.,  etc.).  Israel,  indeed,  is  still  scattered  and  not 
triumphant  over  the  heathen,  but  even  in  the  dispersion  the 
Jews  are  under  a  mild  rule  (cvi.  46),  and  the  commercial 
activity  of  the  nation  has  begun  to  develop  beyond  the  seas 
(cvii.  23  sq.).  The  whole  situation  and  vein  of  piety  here 
are  strikingly  parallel  to  those  shown  in  Ecclesiasticus, 
which  dates  from  the  close  of  the  Ptolemaic  sovereignty 
in  Palestine. 

But  some  of  the  Psalms  carry  us  beyond  this  peaceful 
period  to  a  time  of  struggle  and  victory.  In  Ps.  cxviii. 
Israel,  led  by  the  house  of  Aaron — this  is  a  notable  point — 
has  emerged  triumphant  from  a  desperate  conflict  and  cele- 
brates at  the  Temple  a  great  day  of  rejoicing  for  the  unhoped- 
for victory ;  in  Ps.  cxlix.  the  saints  are  pictured  with  the 
praises  of  God  in  their  throat  and  a  sharp  sword  in  their 
hands  to  take  vengeance  on  the  heathen,  to  bind  their  kings 
and  nobles,  and  exercise  against  them  the  judgment  written 
in  prophecy.  Such  an  enthusiasm  of  militant  piety,  plainly 
based  on  actual  successes  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Aaron, 


GREEK    PERIOD  211 


can  only  be  referred  to  the  first  victories  of  the  JMaccabees, 
culminating  in  the  purification  of  the  Temple  in  1G5  B.C. 
This  restoration  of  worship  in  the  national  sanctuary, 
under  circumstances  that  inspired  religious  feelings  very 
different  from  those  of  any  other  generation  since  the  return 
from  Babylon,  might  most  naturally  be  followed  by  an  ex- 
tension of  the  Temple  psalmody ;  it  certainly  was  followed 
by  some  liturgical  innovations,  for  the  solemn  service  of 
dedication  on  the  twenty-fifth  day  of  Chisleu  was  made  the 
pattern  of  a  new  annual  feast  (that  mentioned  in  John  x. 
22).  ISTow  in  1  Mac.  iv.  54  we  learn  that  the  dedication  was 
celebrated  with  hymns  and  music.  In  later  times  the  Psalms 
for  the  encaenia  or  feast  of  dedication  embraced  Ps.  xxx.  and 
the  hallcl  Pss.  cxiii.-cxviii.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
these  were  the  very  Psalms  sung  in  165  B.C.,  for  in  the  title 
of  Ps.  xxx.  the  words  "the  songj  for  the  dedication  of  the 
house,"  which  are  a  somewhat  awkward  insertion  in  the 
orifrinal  title,  are  found  also  in  the  LXX.,  and  therefore  are 
probable  evidence  of  the  liturgical  use  of  the  Psalm  in  the 
very  first  years  of  the  feast.  But  no  collection  of  old  Psalms 
could  fully  suffice  for  such  an  occasion,  and  there  is  every 
reason  to  think  that  the  hallcl,  which  especially  in  its  closing 
part  contains  allusions  that  fit  no  other  time  so  well,  was 
first  arranged  for  the  same  ceremony.  The  course  of  the 
subsequent  history  makes  it  very  intelligible  that  the  Psalter 
was  finally  closed,  as  we  have  seen  from  the  date  of  the 
Greek  version  that  it  must  have  been,  within  a  few  years  at 
most  after  this  great  event.^  From  the  time  of  Hyrcanus 
downwards  the  ideal  of  the  princely  high  priests  became 
more  and  more  divergent  from  the  ideal  of  the  pious  in 
Israel,  and  in  the  Psalter  of  Solomon  (about  50  B.C.)  we  see 

^  The  final  redaction  may  have  taken  place  under  Simon  ;  compare  the 
closing  series  of  Hallelujah  Psalms  (cxlvi,-cl.)  with  1  Mac.  xiii.  50  sqq.  The 
title  of  Ps.  cxlv.  "a  Davidic  Tehilla,"  is  probably  meant  to  cover  all  the 
Psalms  that  follow  and  designate  them  as  one  great  canticle. 


212  COMPLETION    OF 


religious  poetry  turned  against  the  lords  of  the  Temple  and 
its  worship. 

"We  are  thus  led  by  a  concurrence  of  arguments  to  assign 
the  collection  of  Psalms  xc.-cl.  and  the  completion  of  the 
whole  Psalter  to  the  early  years  of  Maccabee  sovereignty. 
It  by  no  means  follows  that  all  the  Psalms  in  the  last  great 
section  of  the  Psalter  were  written  in  the  Greek  period  ;  for 
the  composition  of  a  poem  and  its  introduction  into  the 
Temple  liturgy  do  not  necessarily  go  together  except  in  the 
case  of  hymns  written  with  a  direct  liturgical  purpose.  In 
the  fifteen  Pilgrimage  Songs  already  referred  to  we  have  a 
case  in  point.  All  these  songs  are  plainly  later  than  the 
Captivity,  but  some  of  them  are  surely  older  than  the  close 
of  the  Elohistic  Psalm-book,  and  the  simple  reason  why  they 
are  not  included  in  it  is  that  they  were  hymns  of  the  laity, 
describing  the  emotions  of  the  pilgrim  when  his  feet  stood 
within  the  gates  of  Jerusalem,  when  he  looked  forth  on  the 
encircling  hills,  when  he  felt  how  good  it  was  to  be  camping 
side  by  side  with  his  brethren  on  the  slopes  of  Zion  (cxxxiii.),^ 
when  a  sense  of  Jehovah's  forgiving  grace  and  the  certainty 
of  redemption  for  Israel  triumphed  over  all  the  evils  of  the 
present  and  filled  his  soul  with  humble  and  patient  hope. 

When  I  say  that  the  fifteen  Pilgrimage  Psalms  are  all 
later  than  the  Captivity,  I  do  not  forget  that  the  Hebrew 
titles  ascribe  four  of  them  to  David  and  one  to  Solomon.  But 
these  titles  are  lacking  in  the  Septuagint,  although  the  general 

1  The  point  of  Ps.  cxxxiii.  is  missed  in  all  the  commentaries  I  have  looked 
at.  The  good  and  pleasant  thing  (ver.  1)  is  that  those  who  are  brethren  also 
(DJ)  dwell  together,  i.e.  not  that  they  live  in  harmony,  but  that,  in  the  solemn 
feast  which  has  brought  them  together  to  Zion,  the  scattered  brethren  of  one 
faith  enjoy  the  privilege  of  being  near  one  another.  The  following  verses 
describe  the  scene  under  a  figure.  The  long  lines  of  the  houses  of 
Jerusalem,  and  the  tents  of  the  pilgrims,  flow  down  the  slopes  of  the  Temple 
hill  even  to  the  base,  like  the  oil  on  Aaron's  garments— a  blessed  sight.  Nay, 
this  gathering  of  all  the  piety  of  Israel  is  as  if  the  fertilising  dews  of  great 
Hermon  were  all  concentrated  on  the  little  hill  of  Zion. 


LECT.  VII  THE    PSALTER  213 

tendency  of  that  version  is  to  give  David  more  Psalms  than 
bear  his  name  in  the  Hebrew  (sicpra,  p.  96).  In  Psahn  exxii. 
the  title  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  verse  5,  and  from 
the  English  version  one  would  at  least  conclude  that  the 
Psalm  was  written  under  the  Davidic  dynasty.  But  the  true 
translation  in  verses  4,  5,  is  "  whither  the  tribes  went  up,"  and 
"  for  there  were  set  thrones  of  judgment,  the  thrones  of  the 
house  of  David."  To  the  Psalmist,  therefore,  the  Davidic 
dynasty  is  a  thing  of  the  past.  Better  attested,  because  found 
in  the  Greek  as  well  as  the  Hebrew,  are  the  titles  which 
assign  Ps.  xc.  to  Moses  and  Pss.  ci.  ciii.  cviii.-cx.  cxxxviii.- 
cxlv.  to  David.  But  where  did  the  last  collectors  of  the 
Psalter  find  such  very  ancient  pieces,  which  had  been  passed 
over  by  all  previous  collectors,  and  what  criterion  was  there 
to  establish  their  genuineness  ?  The  Psalms  ascribed  to 
David  in  the  earlier  parts  of  the  Psalter  form  well-marked 
groups  bearing  internal  evidence  that  they  once  formed 
separate  collections.  But  in  the  Third  Collection  and  in  the 
appendix  to  the  Elohistic  Psalm-book  authors'  names  occur 
only  sporadically,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  titles 
were  taken  over  along  with  the  Psalms  from  some  older  book. 
No  canon  of  literary  criticism  can  assign  value  to  an  attesta- 
tion which  first  appears  so  many  centuries  after  the  supposed 
date  of  the  poems,  especially  when  it  is  confronted  by  facts 
so  conclusive  as  that  Ps.  cviii.  is  made  up  of  extracts  from  Pss. 
Ivii.  and  Ix. ;  that  in  Ps.  cxliv.  10  the  singer  expressly  distin- 
guishes himself  from  David  ("  0  thou  .  .  .  that  didst  save  David 
from  the  hurtful  sword,  save  me  "),  and  that  Psalm  cxxxix.  is 
marked  by  its  language  as  one  of  the  latest  pieces  in  the 
whole  book.  The  only  possible  question  for  the  critic  is 
whether  all  these  titles  rest  on  editorial  conjecture,  or  whether 
some  of  the  Psalms  exemplify  the  habit,  so  common  in  later 
Jewish  literature,  of  writing  in  the  name  of  ancient  worthies. 
In  the  case  of  Ps.  xc.  at  least  it  seems  probable  that  the 


214  THE    DAVIDIC  lect.  vii 

Psalmist   designs   to   speak,  dramatically,   in   the   name   of 
Moses. 

We  have  now  seen  that  for  the  later  stages  in  the  history 
of  the  Psalter  there  is  an  amount  of  circumstantial  evidence 
pointing  to  conclusions  of  a  pretty  definite  kind.  The 
approximate  dates  which  their  contents  suggest  for  the  collec- 
tion of  the  Elohistic  Psalm-book  and  of  Books  IV.  and  V.  con- 
firm one  another  and  are  in  harmony  with  such  indications 
as  we  obtain  from  external  sources.  But,  in  order  to  advance 
from  the  conclusions  already  reached  to  a  view  of  the  history 
of  the  Psalter  as  a  whole,  we  have  still  to  consider  the  two 
great  groups  of  Psalms  ascribed  to  David  in  Books  I.  and  II. 
Both  these  groups  appear  once  to  have  formed  separate 
collections  and  to  have  been  ascribed  to  David  in  their 
separate  form ;  for  in  Book  I.  every  Psalm,  except  the  intro- 
ductory poems  i.  and  ii.  and  the  late  Ps.  xxxiii.,  which  may 
have  been  added  as  a  liturgical  sequel  to  Ps.  xxxii.,  bears  the 
title  "  of  David,"  and  in  like  manner  the  group  Pss.  li.-lxxii. 
is  essentially  a  Davidic  hymn-book,  which  has  been  taken 
over  as  a  whole  into  the  Elohistic  Psalter,  even  the  subscrip- 
tion Ixxii.  20  not  being  omitted.  Moreover,  the  collectors  of 
Books  I.-III.  knew  of  no  Davidic  Psalms  outside  of  these  two 
collections ;  for  Ps.  Ixxxvi.,  in  the  appendix  to  the  Elohistic 
collection,  is  merely  a  cento  of  quotations  from  Davidic  pieces 
with  a  verse  or  two  from  Exodus  and  Jeremiah.  These  two 
groups,  therefore,  represented  to  the  collectors  the  oldest 
tradition  of  Hebrew  psalmody ;  they  are  either  reaUy  Davidic 
or  they  passed  as  such.  This  fact  is  important;  but  its 
weight  may  readily  be  over-estimated,  for  the  Levitical 
Psalms  comprise  poems  of  the  last  half-century  of  the  Persian 
empire,  and  the  final  collection  of  Books  II.  and  III.  may  fall 
a  good  deal  later.  Thus  the  tradition  as  to  the  authorship  of 
the  second  Davidic  Collection  comes  to  us,  not  exactly  from 
the  time  of  the  Chronicler,  but  certainly  from  the  time  when 


LECT.  VII  COLLECTIONS  215 

the  view  of  Hebrew  history  whicli  he  expresses  was  in  the 
course  of  formation.  And  that  view — which  to  some  extent 
appears  in  the  historical  Psahns  of  the  Elohistic  Psalter  ^ — 
implies  such  incapacity  to  imderstand  the  difference  between 
old  Israel  and  later  Judaism  as  to  make  almost  anything 
possible  in  the  way  of  the  ascription  of  comparatively  modern 
pieces  to  ancient  worthies.  It  is  true  that  the  collectors  of 
the  Elohistic  Psalm-book  did  not  invent  the  titles  and  sub- 
scription of  the  group  ot  Davidic  Psalms  which  they  included 
in  their  work ;  but  evidence  that  these  titles  are  older  than 
the  beginning  of  the  Greek  period,  and  that  the  Elohistic 
collectors  accepted  them  as  genuine,  goes  but  a  very  little 
way  towards  proving  that  they  really  are  derived  by  con- 
tinuous tradition  from  the  time  of  David  himself.  As  regards 
the  first  Davidic  Collection,  the  evidence  carries  us  a  little 
farther  back.  That  collection  is  not  touched  by  the  Elohistic 
redaction  (the  habitual  substitution  of  Eloliim  for  laliict) 
which  the  second  Davidic  Collection  has  undergone.  Now  the 
formation  of  the  Elohistic  Psalter  must  have  been  an  official 
act  directed  to  the  consolidation  of  the  liturgical  material  used 
in  the  Temple  services;  and  if  it  left  the  Eirst  Collection 
untouched  the  reason  presumably  was  that  this  collection 
already  had  a  fixed  liturgical  position  which  could  not  be 
meddled  with.  In  other  words,  Pss.  i.-xli.  form  the  oldest 
extant  Temple  hymn-book,  while  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Pss.  li.-lxxii.  had  a  fixed  liturgical  position  before  the  last 
years  of  the  Persian  Empire. 

At  this  point  I  tliink  that  we  may  simplify  the  argument 
by  dropping  for  a  moment  the  question  of  the  Davidic  Collec- 

^  In  Ps.  Ixxviii.  the  final  rejection  of  the  house  of  Joseph  is  co-ordinated 
with  the  fair  of  the  sanctuary  of  Shiloh  and  the  rise  of  Zion  and  the  Davidic 
house  in  a  way  that  comes  very  close  to  the  Chronicler's  attitude  to  the 
northern  kingdom.  "We  have  already  seen  {supra,  p.  205,  note)  that  one  of  tlie 
Midrashim  drawn  on  by  the  Chronicler  seems  to  have  been  written  at  the 
time  when  the  singers  were  still  divided  into  Asaphites  and  Korahites 
(2  Chron.  xx.  14,  19). 


216  TITLES    OF  LECT.  VII 

tions  as  wholes  and  looking  at  individual  Psalms.  Our 
estimate  of  the  value  of  the  tradition  which  ascribes  whole 
groups  of  Psalms  to  David  must  necessarily  be  lowered  if  we 
find  individual  Psalms  bearing  David's  name  which  cannot 
possibly  be  his.  And  this  is  undoubtedly  the  case  as  regards 
both  the  Davidic  Collections ;  for  not  only  are  many  of  the 
titles  certainly  wrong,  but  they  are  wrong  in  such  a  way  as 
to  prove  that  they  date  from  an  age  to  which  David  was 
merely  the  abstract  psalmist,  and  which  had  no  idea  what- 
ever of  the  historical  conditions  of  his  time.  For  example, 
Pss.  XX.  xxi.  are  not  spoken  by  a  king  but  addressed  to  a 
king  by  his  people;  Pss.  v.  xxvii.  allude  to  the  Temple 
(which  did  not  exist  in  David's  time),  and  the  author  of  the 
latter  Psalm  desires  to  live  there  continually.  Even  in  the 
older  Davidic  Psalm-book  there  is  a  whole  series  of  hymns 
in  which  the  writer  identifies  himself  with  the  poor  and 
needy,  the  righteous  people  of  God  suffering  in  silence  at  the 
hands  of  the  wicked,  without  other  hope  than  patiently  to 
wait  for  the  interposition  of  Jehovah  (Pss.  xii.  xxv.  xxxvii. 
xxxviii.  etc.).  Nothing  can  be  farther  removed  than  this 
from  any  possible  situation  in  the  life  of  the  David  of  the 
Books  of  Samuel.  Most  of  these  Psalms  are  referred  by  the 
defenders  of  the  titles  to  the  time  when  David  was  pursued 
by  Saul.  But  it  is  quite  unhistorical  to  represent  Saul  as  a 
man  who  persecuted  and  spoiled  all  the  quiet  and  godly  souls 
in  Israel ;  and  David  and  his  friends  were  never  helpless 
sufferers — the  quiet  or  timid  in  the  land  (xxxv.  20),  dumb 
amidst  all  oppression  (xxxviii.  13,  14).  And  such  a  Psalm 
as  xxxvii.,  where  the  Psalmist  calls  himself  an  old  man, 
must,  on  the  traditional  view,  be  spoken  by  David  late  in  his 
prosperous  reign  ;  yet  here  we  have  the  same  situation — the 
wicked  rampant,  the  righteous  suffering  in  silence,  as  if 
David  were  not  a  king  who  sat  on  his  throne  doing  justice 
and  judgment  to  all  his  people  (2  Sam.  viii.  15).     If  Psalms 


LECT.  VII  DAVIDIC    PSALMS  217 

ix.  X.  xxxvii.  represent  the  state  of  things  in  the  time  of 
David,  the  Books  of  Samuel  are  the  most  partial  of  histories, 
and  the  reign  of  the  son  of  Jesse  was  not  the  golden  age 
which  it  appeared  to  all  subsequent  generations.  The  case 
is  still  clearer  in  the  second  Davidic  Collection,  especially 
where  we  have  in  the  titles  definite  notes  as  to  the  historical 
occasion  on  which  the  poems  are  supposed  to  have  been 
written.  To  refer  Ps.  lii.  to  Doeg,  Ps.  liv.  to  the  Ziphites, 
Ps.  lix.  to  David  when  watched  in  his  house  by  Saul,  implies 
an  absolute  lack  of  the  very  elements  of  historical  judgment. 
Even  the  bare  names  of  the  old  history  were  no  longer 
correctly  known  when  Abimelech  (the  Philistine  king  in  the 
stories  of  Abraham  and  Isaac)  could  be  substituted  in  the 
title  of  Ps.  xxxiv.  for  Achish,  king  of  Gath.  In  a  word,  the 
ascription  of  these  two  collections  to  David  has  none  of  the 
characters  of  a  genuine  historical  tradition.^ 

Against  the  certainty  that  all  the  Psalms  ascribed  to 
David  in  Books  I.-III.  cannot  really  be  his,  and  that  the 
historical  notes  ascribing  particular  Psalms  to  special  events 
in  his  life  are  often  grotesquely  impossible,  we  have  still  to 
set  the  fact  that  the  name  of  David  was  attached  to  the 
oldest  collection  of  hymns  used  in  the  Temple.  The  facts 
that  have  come  before  us  are  sufficient  to  disprove  the  idea 

^  Psalm  lii.  is  said  to  refer  to  Doeg.  It  actually  speaks  of  a  rich  and 
powerful  man,  an  enemy  of  the  righteous  in  Israel,  whom  God  will  lay  low, 
whilst  the  psalmist  is  like  a  green  olive  tree  in  the  house  of  God,  whose  mercy 
is  his  constant  support.  Psalm  liv.  is  said  to  be  spoken  against  the  Ziphites. 
In  reality  it  speaks  of  strangers  and  tyrants,  standing  Old  Testament  names 
for  foreign  oppressors.  In  Psalm  Iv.  the  singer  lives  among  foes  in  a  city 
whose  walls  they  occupy  with  their  patrols,  exercising  constant  violence 
within  the  town,  from  which  the  psalmist  would  gladly  escape  to  the  desert. 
The  enemy  is  in  alliance  with. one  who  had  once  been  an  associate  of  the 
psalmist,  and  joined  with  him  in  the  service  of  the  sacred  feasts.  Hence  the 
Psalm  is  often  applied  to  Ahithoijliel ;  but  the  whole  situation  is  as  different 
as  possible.  In  Psahn  lix.  we  are  asked  to  find  a  Psalm  composed  by  David 
when  he  was  watched  in  his  house  by  Saul.  In  reality  the  singer  speaks  of 
heathen  foes  encircling  the  city,  i.e.  Jerusalem,  whom  God  is  prayed  to  cast 
down,  that  His  power  may  be  manifest  over  all  the  earth. 


218  PSALMODY   BEFORE  lect.  vii 

that  even  in  the  First  Collection  every  Psalm  ascribed  to 
David  was  really  his.  But  the  example  of  the  fifteen 
Pilgrimage  Songs  has  made  it  probable  to  us  that  when  these 
Davidic  Collections  existed  separately  the  name  of  David  may 
not  have  been  attached  to  every  Psalm,  and  that  the  titles,  as 
we  now  have  them,  may  have  been  drawn  from  a  general  title 
which  originally  stood  at  the  head  of  the  whole  collection. 
And  just  as  the  whole  Book  of  Proverbs,  though  it  contains 
elements  of  various  dates,  now  appears  as  the  Proverbs  of 
Solomon,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  titles  "  Psalms  of  David,'* 
prefixed  to  Pss.  i.-xli.  li.-lxxii.,  originally  stood  in  front  of 
collections  consisting  of  Psalms  of  David  and  other  hymns. 
And  so  it  may  be  argued  that  though  the  titles  taken  one  by 
one  are  of  deficient  authority,  their  combined  evidence  is 
strong  enough  to  prove  that  in  both  Davidic  Collections,  or  at 
any  rate  in  the  first,  there  is  a  substantial  element  that  really 
goes  back  to  David.  This  is  a  contention  worth  examining ; 
whereas  those  who  argue  for  more  than  this  are  already  put 
out  of  court  by  the  evidence  before  us.  But  it  is  evident  that 
the  force  of  the  presumption  that  a  substantial  number  of 
Psalms  are  from  David's  pen  must  in  great  measure  depend 
on  the  date  at  which  the  First  Collection  was  brought  together. 
We  have  seen  reason  to  believe  that  Pss.  i.-xli.  are  the  oldest 
part  of  the  Temple  liturgy ;  but  can  we  suppose  that  the 
oldest  Temple  liturgy  was  collected  before  the  Exile  and  used 
in  the  worship  of  the  first  Temple  ?  To  answer  this  ques- 
tion I  must  begin  by  bringing  together  the  scanty  notices 
that  have  reached  us  as  to  religious  music  and  hymns  in  the 
old  kingdom. 

We  have  it  in  evidence  that  music  and  song  accompanied 
the  worship  of  the  great  sanctuaries  of  northern  Israel  in  the 
eighth  century  B.C.  (Amos  v.  23),  but  from  the  context  it 
appears  probable  that  the  musicians  were  not  officers  of  the 
Temple  but  rather  the  worshippers  at  large  (compare  Amos 


THE    CAPTIVITY  219 


vi.  5).  So  it  certainly  was  in  the  days  of  David  (2  Sam. 
vi.  5),  and  even  of  Isaiah  (xxx.  29) ;  the  same  thing  is  implied 
in  the  song  of  Hezekiah  (Isa.  xxxviii.  20) ;  and  in  Lam.  ii.  7 
the  noise  within  the  sanctuary  on  a  feast-day  affords  a  simile 
for  the  shouts  of  the  victorious  Chaldeans,  which  suggests 
the  untrained  efforts  of  the  congregation  rather  than  the  dis- 
ciplined music  of  a  Temple  choir.  The  allusion  to  "chambers 
of  singers  "  in  Ezek.  xl.  44  is  omitted  in  the  Septuagint, 
and  this  is  justified  by  the  context ;  so  that  the  first  certain 
allusion  to  a  class  of  singers  among  the  sacred  ministers 
is  at  the  return  from  Babylon  (Ezra  ii.  41).  The  way  in 
which  these  singers,  the  sons  of  Asaph,  are  spoken  of  may  be 
taken  as  evidence  that  there  w^as  a  guild  of  Temple  singers 
before  the  Exile  ;  but  if  they  had  been  very  conspicuous  we 
should  have  heard  more  of  them.  The  historical  books  are 
fond  of  varying  the  narrative  by  the  insertion  of  lyrical 
pieces,  and  one  or  two  of  these — the  "  passover  song  "  (Exod. 
XV.)  and  perhaps  the  song  from  the  Book  of  Jashar  ascribed 
to  Solomon  {supra,  p.  124) — look  as  if  they  were  sung  in  the 
first  Temple;  but  they  are  not  found  in  the  Psalter,  and, 
conversely,  no  piece  from  the  Psalter  is  used  to  illustrate  the 
life  of  David  except  Ps.  xviii.,  and  it  occurs  in  a  section 
which  interrupts  the  original  sequence  of  the  history  (infra, 
p.  222).  These  facts  seem  to  indicate  that  even  Book  I.  of 
the  Psalter  did  not  exist  during  the  Exile,  when  the  editing  of 
the  historical  books  was  completed,  and  that  in  psalmody  as 
in  other  matters  the  ritual  of  the  second  Temple  was  com- 
pletely reconstructed.  Indeed  the  radical  change  in  the 
religious  life  of  the  nation  caused  by  the  Captivity  could  not 
fail  to  influence  the  psalmody  of  the  sanctuary  more  than 
any  other  part  of  the  worship;  the  Book  of  Lamentations 
marks  an  era  of  profound  importance  in  the  religious  poetry 
of  Israel,  and  no  collection  formed  before  these  dirges  were 
first  sung  could  have  been  an  adequate  hymn-book  for  the 


220  ORIGIN    OF   THE 


LECT.  VII 


second  Temple.  In  point  of  fact  the  notes  struck  in  the 
Lamentations  and  in  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  meet  our  ears  again  in  not 
a  few  Psahns  of  Book  I.,  e.g.  Pss.  xxii.  xxv.,  where  the  closing 
prayer  for  the  redemption  of  Israel  in  a  verse  additional  to 
the  acrostic  perhaps  gives,  as  Lagarde  suggests,  the  character- 
istic post-exile  name  Pedaiah  as  that  of  the  author ;  Ps. 
xxxi.,  with  many  points  of  resemblance  to  Jeremiah ;  Pss. 
xxxiv.  XXXV.,  where  the  "  servant  of  Jehovah "  is  the  same 
collective  idea  as  in  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi. ;  and  Pss.  xxxviii.  xli. 
The  key  to  many  of  these  Psalms  is  that  the  singer  is  not  an 
individual  but,  as  in  Lam.  iii.,  the  true  people  of  God  repre- 
sented as  one  person  ;  and  only  in  this  way  can  we  do  justice 
to  expressions  which  have  always  been  a  stumbling-block  to 
those  who  regard  David  as  the  author.  But,  at  the  same 
time,  other  Psalms  of  the  collection  treat  the  problems  of 
individual  religion  in  the  line  of  thought  first  opened  by 
Jeremiah.  Such  a  Psalm  is  xxxix.,  and  above  all  Ps.  xvi. 
Other  pieces,  indeed,  may  well  be  earlier.  When  we  com- 
pare Ps.  viii.  with  Job  vii.  17,  18,  we  can  hardly  doubt  that 
the  Psalm  lay  before  the  writer  who  gave  its  expressions  so 
bitter  a  turn  in  the  anguish  of  his  soul,  and  Pss.  xx.  xxi. 
plainly  belong  to  the  old  kingdom.  But  on  the  whole  it  is 
not  the  pre-exilic  pieces  that  give  the  tone  to  the  collection  ; 
whatever  the  date  of  this  or  that  individual  poem,  the  collec- 
tion as  a  whole — whether  by  selection  or  authorship — is 
adapted  to  express  a  religious  life  of  which  the  exile  is  the 
presupposition.  Only  in  this  way  can  we  understand  the 
conflict  and  triumph  of  spiritual  faith,  habitually  represented 
as  the  faith  of  a  poor  and  struggling  band,  living  in  the  midst 
of  oppressors  and  with  no  strength  or  help  but  the  con- 
sciousness of  loyalty  to  Jehovah,  which  is  the  fundamental 
note  of  the  whole  book. 

The   contents  of  the  First   Collection   suggest  a   doubt 
whether  it  was  originally  put  together  by  the  Temple  ministers, 


LECT.  VII  FiKST  collp:ction  221 

whose  hymn-book  it  ultimately  became.  The  singers  aod 
Levites  were  ill  provided  for,  and  consequently  irregular  in 
their  attendance  at  the  Temple,  till  the  time  of  Nehemiah, 
who  made  it  his  business  to  settle  the  revenues  of  the  clergy 
in  such  a  way  as  to  make  regular  service  possible.  With 
regular  service  a  formal  liturgy  would  be  required,  and  in 
the  absence  of  direct  evidence  it  may  be  conjectured  that  the 
adoption  of  the  first  part  of  the  Psalter  for  this  purpose  took 
place  in  connection  with  the  other  far-reaching  reforms  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  which  first  gave  a  stable  character  to 
the  community  of  the  second  Temple.  In  any  case  these 
Psalms,  full  as  they  are  of  spiritual  elements  which  can  never 
cease  to  be  the  model  of  true  worship,  are  the  necessary  com- 
plement of  the  law  as  published  by  Ezra,  and  must  be  always 
taken  along  with  it  by  those  who  would  understand  what 
Judaism  in  its  early  days  really  was,  and  how  it  prepared  the 
way  for  the  gospel. 

The  second  Davidic  Collection,  which  begins  with  a  Psalm 
of  the  Exile  (Ps.  li.  ;^  see  the  last  two  verses),  contains  some 
pieces  which  carry  us  down  to  a  date  decidedly  later  than  that 
of  Nehemiah.  Thus  Ps.  Ixviii.  27  represents  the  worshipping 
congregation  as  drawn  partly  from  the  neighbourhood  of 
Jerusalem  and  partly  from  the  colony  of  Galilee.  In  several 
Psalms  of  this  collection,  as  in  the  Levitical  Psalms  with 
which  it  is  coupled,  we  see  that  the  Jews  have  again  begun 
to  feel  themselves  a  nation  and  not  a  mere  municipality, 
though  they  are  still  passing  through  bitter  struggles ;  and 
side  by  side  with  this  there  is  a  development  of  Messianic 
hope,  which  in  Ps.  Ixxii.  takes  a  sweep  as  wide  as  the  vision 
of  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.  All  these  marks  carry  us  down  for  this,  as 
for  the  other  parts  of  the  Elohistic  Psalter,  to  the  last  days 
of  the  Achcemenian  empire,  when  the  great  revolt  of  the 
West  broke  the  tradition  of  passive  obedience  to  the  Persian. 
^  See  additional  Note  E. 


222  David's  place  in  lect.  vn 

Several  points  indicate  that  this  collection  was  not  originally 
formed  as  part  of  the  Temple  liturgy.  The  title,  as  preserved 
in  the  subscription  of  Psalm  Ixxii.  20,  was  not  "  Psalms  "  but 
"  Prayers  of  David."  Again,  while  the  Levitical  Psalms  were 
sung  in  the  name  of  righteous  Israel,  of  which,  according  to 
the  theory  of  the  second  Temple,  the  priests  and  Levites 
were  the  special  holy  representatives,  the  Davidic  Psalms 
contain  touching  utterances  of  contrition  and  confession  (Pss. 
li.  Ixv.).  And  while  there  are  direct  references  to  the  Temple 
service,  these  are  often  made  from  the  standpoint,  not  of  the 
ministers  of  the  sanctuary,  but  of  the  laity  who  came  up  to 
join  in  the  solemn  feasts  or  appear  before  the  altar  to  fulfil 
their  vows  (Pss.  liv.  6,  Iv.  14,  Ixvi.  13,  etc.).  Moreover,  the 
didactic  element  so  prominent  in  the  Levitical  Psalms  is  not 
found  here. 

When  we  have  learned  that  the  two  Davidic  Collections 
are  in  the  main  the  utterance  of  Israel's  faith  in  the  time  of 
the  second  Temple,  the  question  whether  some  at  least  of  the 
older  poems  are  really  David's  becomes  more  curious  than 
important.  There  is  no  Psalm  which  we  can  assign  to  him 
with  absolute  certainty  and  use  to  throw  light  on  his  character 
or  on  any  special  event  in  his  life.  One  Psalm  indeed  (xviii.) 
is  ascribed  to  David  not  only  by  the  title  but  in  2  Sam.  xxii., 
and  if  this  attestation  formed  part  of  the  ancient  and  excellent 
tradition  from  which  the  greater  part  of  the  narrative  of 
2  Samuel  is  derived  there  would  be  every  reason  to  accept  it 
as  conclusive.  But  we  have  already  seen  (siqjra,  p.  114)  that 
2  Sam.  xxi.-xxiv.  is  an  appendix,  of  various  contents,  which 
breaks  the  original  continuity  of  the  court  history.  Origin- 
ally Samuel  and  Kings  were  a  single  history,  and  1  Kings  i. 
followed  directly  on  2  Sam.  xx.  The  appendix  which  now 
breaks  the  connection  must  have  been  inserted  after  the 
history  was  divided  into  two  books,  not  earlier  than  the 
Captivity,  and  possibly  a  good  deal  later;  and  so  this  evidence 


LECT.  VII  HEBREW    PSALMODY  223 

does  not  help  us  to  prove  that  any  Psalm  was  assigned  to 
David  by  ancient  and  continuous  tradition. 

On  the  whole,  then,  it  cannot  be  made  out  that  the  oldest 
Psalm-book  bore  the  name  of  David  because  it  was  mainly 
from  his  hand,  or  even  because  it  contained  a  substantial 
number  of  hymns  written  by  him.  And  on  the  other  hand, 
there  is  evidence  that  the  association  of  David's  name  with  the 
Temple  psalmody  originally  referred  to  the  music  and  execu- 
tion rather  than  to  the  hymns  themselves.  In  the  memoirs 
of  Nehemiah  we  do  not  read  of  Psalms  of  David,  but  we 
learn  that  the  singers  used  the  musical  instruments  of  David 
the  man  of  God  (Neh.  xii.  36).  So,  too,  the  expression  "  the 
sweet  psalmist  of  Israel,"  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  1,  refers  in  the 
Hebrew  not  to  the  composition  of  psalms  but  to  musical 
execution.  Though  the  old  histories  do  not  speak  of  David 
as  a  Psalm- writer  they  dwell  on  his  musical  skill,  and  2  Sam. 
vi.  5,  14,  tells  how  he  danced  and  played  before  the  ark  as  it 
was  brought  up  with  joy  to  Jerusalem.  Dancing,  music,  and 
song  are  in  early  times  the  united  expression  of  lyrical  inspira- 
tion, and  the  sacred  melodies  were  still  conjoined  with  dances  at 
the  time  of  the  latest  Psalms  (cxlix.  3,  cl.  4).  We  have  every 
right,  therefore,  to  conclude  that  the  talents  of  Israel's  most 
gifted  singer  were  not  withheld  from  the  service  of  Jehovah, 
which  King  David  placed  high  above  all  considerations  of 
royal  dignity  (2  Sam.  vi.  21).  On  the  other  hand,  a  curious 
passage  of  the  Book  of  Amos  (vi.  5),  "  they  devise  for  them- 
selves instruments  of  music  like  David,"  makes  David  the 
chosen  model  of  the  dilettanti  nobles  of  Samaria,  who  lay 
stretched  on  beds  of  ivory,  anointed  with  the  choicest  per- 
fumes, and  mingling  music  with  their  cups  in  the  familiar 
fashion  of  Oriental  luxury.  These  two  views  of  David  as  a 
musician  are  not  irreconcilable  if  we  remember  that  in  old 
Israel  religion  was  not  separated  from  ordinary  life,  and  that 
the  gladness  of  the  believing  heart  found  natural  utterance 


224  David's  place  in  lect.  vh 

ill  sportful  forms  of  unconstrained  mirth.  At  a  much  later 
date,  as  we  have  seen,  chants  for  the  Temple  service  were 
borrowed  from  the  joyous  songs  of  the  vintage,  and  so  it  was 
possible  that  David  should  give  the  pattern  alike  for  the 
melodies  of  the  sanctuary  and  for  the  worldly  airs  of  the 
nobles  of  Samaria.  The  sacred  music  of  Israel  was  of  popular 
origin,  and  long  retained  its  popular  type,  and  of  this  music 
David  was  taken  to  be  father  and  great  master.  The  oldest 
psalmody  of  the  second  Temple  was  still  based  on  the  ancient 
popular  or  Davidic  model,  and  this  seems  to  be  the  real  reason 
why  the  oldest  Psalm-book  came  to  be  known  as  "  David's." 
The  same  name  was  afterwards  extended  to  the  other  lay 
collection  of  "  Prayers  of  David,"  while  the  collections  that 
were  formed  from  the  first  for  use  in  the  Temple  were  simply 
named  from  the  Levitical  choirs,  or  in  later  times  bore  no 
distinctive  title. 

The  conclusion  of  this  long  and  complicated  investiga- 
tion takes  from  us  one  use  of  the  Psalter  which  has  been 
a  favourite  exercise  for  pious  imaginations.  It  is  no  longer 
possible  to  treat  the  psalms  as  a  record  of  David's  spiritual 
life  through  all  the  steps  of  his  chequered  career.  But  if  we 
lose  an  imaginary  autobiography  of  one  Old  Testament  saint, 
we  gain  in  its  place  something  far  truer  and  far  richer  in 
religious  lessons ;  a  lively  image  of  the  experience  of  the  Old 
Testament  Church  set  forth  by  the  mouth  of  many  witnesses, 
and  extending  through  the  vicissitudes  of  a  long  history. 
There  is  nothing  in  this  change  to  impoverish  the  devotional 
use  of  the  Psalms  ;  for  even  a  life  like  David's  is  a  small 
thing  compared  with  the  life  of  a  whole  nation,  and  of  such  a 
nation  as  Israel.  It  is  a  vain  apprehension  which  shrinks 
from  applying  criticism  to  the  history  of  the  Psalter  out  of 
fear  lest  the  use  of  edification  should  suffer ;  for  what  can  be 
less  edifying  than  to  force  an  application  to  David's  life  upon 
a  psalm  that  clearly  bespeaks  for  itself  a  different  origin? 


LECT.  VI I 


HEBREW   PSALMODY  225 


No  sober  commentator  is  now  found  to  maintain  tlie  tradi- 
tional titles  in  their  integrity;  and  it  is  puerile  to  try  to 
conserve  the  traditional  position  by  throwing  this  and  that 
title  overboard,  instead  of  frankly  facing  the  whole  critical 
problem  and  refusing  to  be  content  till  we  have  got  a  clear 
uisiglit  into  the  whole  history  of  the  Psalter,  and  a  solid 
basis  for  its  application  not  merely  to  purposes  of  personal 
devotion  but  to  the  systematic  study  of  the  ancient  dis- 
pensation. 


'5 


LECTUEE  VIII 

THE   TRADITIONAL   THEORY   OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT    HISTORY^ 

The  Book  of  Psalms  has  furnished  us  with  an  example  of 
what  can  be  learned  by  critical  study  in  a  subject  of  limited 
compass,  which  can  be  profitably  discussed  without  any  wide 
digression  into  general  questions  of  Old  Testament  history. 
The  criticism  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Law  opens  a  much 
larger  field,  and  brings  us  face  to  face  with  fundamental 
problems. 

We  know,  as  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  that  the  Penta- 
teuch, as  a  whole,  was  put  into  operation  as  the  rule  of  Israel's 
life  at  the  reformation  of  Ezra,  with  a  completeness  which 
had   never  been   aimed  at  from   the  days  of  the  conquest 

^  On  the  subject  of  this  and  the  following  Lectures  the  most  important 
book  is  Wellhausen's  Geschichte  Israels  (Erster  Band,  Berlin,  1878).  The 
later  editions  appeared  under  the  title  of  Prolegomena  zur  Gesch.  Israels 
(1883, 1888) ;  Eng.  trans.,  Edinburgh,  1885.  The  view  set  forth  in  this  volume, 
which  makes  the  Priestly  Legislation  the  latest  stage  in  the  development  of 
the  Law,  is  often  called  "Wellhausenianism,  but  this  designation  is  illegitimate, 
and  conveys  the  false  impression  that  the  account  of  the  Pentateuch  with 
which  Wellhausen's  name  is  associated  is  a  revolutionary  novelty  which  casts 
aside  all  the  labours  of  earlier  critics.  In  point  of  fact  Wellhausen  had  many 
forerunners  even  in  Germany  (George,  Vatke,  Reuss,  Graf,  etc. ) ;  while  in 
Holland  the  lines  of  a  sound  historical  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  had  been 
firmly  traced  by  the  master  hand  of  Kuenen,  and  the  results  for  the  history  of 
the  religion  of  Israel  had  been  set  forth  in  his  Godsdiemt  van  Israel  (Haarlem, 
1869-70).  But  it  was  reserved  for  Wellhausen  to  develop  the  whole  argu- 
ment with  such  a  combination  of  critical  power  and  historical  insight  as  bore 
down  all  opposition.  Even  Dillmann,  who  still  maintains  the  pre-exilic  origin 
of  the  main  body  of  the  Priestly  Code,  defends  this  view  only  on  the  assump- 


LECT.  VIII  THE    PENTATEUCH  227 

of  Canaan  {supra,  p.  43).  From  this  time  onwards  tlie  Penta- 
teuch, in  its  ceremonial  as  well  as  its  moral  precepts,  was  the 
acknowledged  standard  of  Israel's  righteousness  (Neh.  xiii. ; 
Ecclus.  xlv.  ;  1  Mac.  ];)assim  ;  Acts  xv.  5).  According  to  the 
theory  of  the  later  Jews,  which  has  passed  into  current  Chris- 
tian theology,  it  had  always  been  so.  The  whole  law  of  the 
Pentateuch  was  given  in  the  wilderness,  or  on  the  plains  of 
jMoab,  and  Moses  conveyed  to  the  Israelites,  before  they 
entered  Canaan,  everything  that  it  was  necessary  for  them  to 
know  as  a  revelation  from  God,  and  even  a  complete  system 
of  civil  laws  for  the  use  of  ordinary  life.  The  law  was  a  rule 
of  absolute  validity,  and  the  keeping  of  it  was  the  whole  of 
Israel's  religion.  N"©  religion  could  be  acceptable  to  God 
which  was  not  conformed  to  the  legal  ordinances.  On  this 
theory  the  ceremonial  part  of  the  law  must  always  have  been 
the  prominent  and  most  characteristic  feature  of  tlie  Old 
Covenant.  In  the  Levitical  legislation,  the  feasts,  the  sacri- 
ficial ritual,  the  ordinances  of  ceremonial  purity,  are  always 
in  the  foreground  as  the  necessary  forms  in  which  alone  the 
inner  side  of  religion,  love  to  God  and  man,  can  find  accept- 
able expression.     Not  that  religion  is  made  up  of  mere  forms, 

tion  that  the  work  was  an  ideal  or  theoretical  sketch,  from  a  priestly  point 
of  view,  of  a  system  of  ordinances  for  tlie  Hebrew  theocracy  based  on  Mosaic 
principles  and  modified  by  tlie  conditions  of  the  author's  time.  "As  such 
it  had  a  purely  private  character,  and  possessed  no  authority  as  law  "  {Num., 
Deut,  undJos.,  1886,  p.  667). 

The  most  complete  introduction  to  the  Pentateuch  on  the  lines  of  the 
newer  criticism  is  Kuenen's  Ilistorisch-Kritisch  Oixderzock,  2d  ed.,  vol.  i.  The 
first  part  of  this  volume,  embracing  the  Hexateuch,  was  published  in  1884, 
and  has  been  translated  into  English  (London,  1886).  A  shorter  book, 
learned,  sober,  and  lucid,  which  contains  all  that  most  students  can  require, 
is  Professor  Driver's  Introduction  to  the  Lit.  of  the  0.  T.  (Edinburgh,  1891).  It 
ought  to  be  added  that  the  new  criticism  does  not  reject  the  work  that  had 
been  done  by  older  scholars,  but  completes  it.  Those  scholars  were  mainly 
busied  in  separating,  by  linguistic  and  literary  criteria,  the  several  sources  of 
the  Pentateuch  ;  and  this  work  retains  its  full  value.  The  -weak  point  in  the 
old  criticism  was  that  it  failed  to  give  the  results  of  literary  analysis  their 
proper  historical  setting. 


228  THEORY    OF   THE  lect.  viii 

but  everything  in  religion  is  reduced  to  rule  and  has  some 
fixed  ceremonial  expression.  There  is  no  room  for  religious 
spontaneity. 

According  to  this  theory,  it  is  not  possible  to  distinguish 
between  ceremonial  and  moral  precepts  of  the  law,  as  if  the 
observance  of  the  latter  might  excuse  irregularity  in  the 
former.  The  object  of  God's  covenant  with  Israel  was  to 
maintain  a  close  and  constant  bond  between  Jehovah  and  His 
people,  different  in  kind  from  the  relations  of  mankind  in 
general  to  their  Creator.  Israel  was  chosen  to  be  a  holy 
people,  ^ow,  according  to  the  Pentateuch,  holiness  is  not 
exclusively  a  moral  thing.  It  has  special  relation  to  the 
observances  of  ritual  worship  and  ceremonial  purity.  "  Ye 
shall  distinguish  between  clean  beasts  and  unclean,  and  not 
make  yourselves  abominable  by  any  beast,  fowl,  etc.,  which  I 
have  separated  from  you  as  unclean.  And  ye  shall  be  holy 
unto  me  :  for  I  Jehovah  am  holy,  and  have  severed  you  from 
the  nations  to  be  mine  "  (Lev.  xx.  25,  26).  If  a  sacrifice  is 
eaten  on  the  third  day,  "  it  is  abominable  ;  it  shall  not  be 
accepted.  He  that  eateth  it  shall  bear  his  guilt,  for  he  hath 
profaned  Jehovah's  holy  thing  :  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from 
his  people  "  (Lev.  xix.  8).  "  That  which  dieth  of  itself,  or  is 
torn  of  beasts,  no  priest  may  eat  to  defile  himself  therewith. 
I  am  Jehovah ;  and  they  shall  keep  my  ordinance  and  not 
take  sin  on  themselves  by  profaning  it  and  die  therein.  I 
Jehovah  do  sanctify  them"  (Lev.  xxii.  8,  9).  No  stronger 
words  than  these  could  be  found  to  denounce  the  gravest 
moral  turpitude. 

The  whole  system  is  directed  to  the  maintenance  of  holi- 
ness in  Israel,  as  the  condition  of  the  benefits  which  Jehovah 
promises  to  bestow  on  his  people  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  And 
therefore  every  infringement  of  law,  be  it  merely  in  some 
point  of  ceremony  which  we  might  be  disposed  to  think 
indifferent,  demands  an  atonement,  that  the  relation  of  God 


LECT.  VIII  CEREMONIAL    LAW  229 

to  His  people  may  not  be  disturbed.  To  provide  such  atone- 
ment is  the  great  object  of  the  priestly  ritual  which  cul- 
minates in  the  annual  ceremony  of  the  day  of  expiation. 
Atonement  implies  sacrifice,  the  blood  or  life  of  an  offering 
presented  on  the  altar  before  God.  "  It  is  the  blood  that 
atones  by  the  life  that  is  in  it"  (Lev.  xvii.  11 ;  Hebrews  ix. 
22).  But  the  principle  of  holiness  demands  that  the  sacri- 
ficial act  itself,  and  the  altar  on  which  the  blood  is  offered, 
be  hedged  round  by  strict  ritual  precautions.  At  the  altar, 
Jehovah,  in  His  awful  and  inaccessible  holiness,  meets  with 
the  people,  which  is  imperfectly  holy  and  stands  in  need  of 
constant  forgiveness.  There  is  danger  in  such  a  meeting. 
Only  the  priests,  who  live  under  rules  of  intensified  cere- 
monial purity,  and  have  received  a  peculiar  consecration 
from  Jehovah  Himself,  are  permitted  to  touch  the  holy 
things,  and  it  is  they  who  bear  the  sins  of  Israel  before  God 
to  make  atonement  for  them  (Lev.  x.  17).  Between  them 
and  Israel  at  large  is  a  second  cordon  of  holy  ministers,  the 
Levites.  It  is  death  for  any  but  a  priest  to  touch  the  altar, 
and  an  undue  approach  of  ordinary  persons  to  the  sanctuary 
brings  wrath  on  Israel  (Num.  i.  53).  Accordingly,  sacrifice, 
atonement,  and  forgiveness  of  sin  are  absolutely  dependent 
on  the  hierarchy  and  its  service.  The  mass  of  the  people 
have  no  direct  access  to  their  God  in  the  sanctuary.  The 
maintenance  of  the  Old  Testament  covenant  depends  on  the 
priestly  mediation,  and  above  all  on  that  one  annual  day  of 
expiation  when  the  high  priest  enters  the  Holy  of  Holies  and 
"  cleanses  the  people  that  they  may  be  clean  from  all  their 
sins  before  Jehovah"  (Lev.  xvi.  30).  The  whole  system,  you 
perceive,  is  strictly  knit  together.  The  details  are  necessary 
to  the  object  aimed  at.  The  intermission  of  any  part  of  the 
ceremonial  scheme  involves  an  accumulation  of  unforgiven 
sin,  with  the  consequence  of  divine  wrath  on  the  nation  and 
the  withdrawal  of  God's  favour. 


230  THEORY    OF    THE  lect.  viii 

To  complete  this  sketch  of  the  theory  of  the  Pentateuch  it 
is  only  necessary  to  add  that  the  hierarchy  has  no  dispensing 
power.  If  a  man  sins,  he  has  recourse  to  the  sacramental 
sacrifice  appointed  for  his  case.  The  priest  makes  atonement 
for  him,  and  he  is  forgiven.  But  knowingly  and  obstinately 
to  depart  from  any  ordinance  is  to  sin  against  God  with  a 
high  hand,  and  for  this  there  is  no  forgiveness.  "  He  hath 
despised  the  word  of  the  Lord  and  broken  his  command- 
ment: that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  in  his  guilt"  (JSTum.  xv. 
30,  31). 

Such  is  the  system  of  the  law  as  contained  particularly 
in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  practically 
accepted  from  the  days  of  Ezra.  It  is  not  strange  that  the 
later  Jews  should  have  received  it  as  the  sum  of  all  revela- 
tion, for  manifestly  it  is  a  complete  theory  of  the  religious 
life.  Its  aim  is  to  provide  everything  that  man  requires  to 
live  acceptably  with  God,  the  necessary  measure  of  access  to 
Jehovah,  the  necessary  atonement  for  all  sin,  and  the  neces- 
sary channel  for  the  conveyance  of  God's  blessing  to  man. 
It  is,  I  repeat,  a  complete  theory  of  the  religious  life,  to 
which  nothing  can  be  added  without  an  entire  change  of 
dispensation.  Accordingly,  the  Jewish  view  of  the  law  as 
complete,  and  the  summary  of  all  revelation,  has  passed  into 
Christian  theology,  with  only  this  modification,  that,  whereas 
the  Jews  think  of  the  dispensation  of  the  law  as  final,  and 
the  atonement  which  it  offers  as  sufficient,  we  have  learned 
to  regard  the  dispensation  as  temporary  and  its  atonement 
as  typical,  prefiguring  the  atonement  of  Christ.  But  this 
modification  of  the  Jewish  view  of  the  Torah  does  not  dimi- 
nish the  essential  importance  of  the  law  for  the  life  of  the 
old  dispensation.  The  ceremonies  were  not  less  necessary 
because  they  were  typical ;  for  they  are  still  to  be  regarded 
as  divinely  appointed  means  of  grace,  to  which  alone  God 
had  attached  the  promise  of  blessing. 


LECT.  VIII  CEREMONIAL    LAW  231 

Now,  as  soon  as  we  lay  down  the  position  that  the  system 
of  the  ceremonial  law,  embracing,  as  it  does,  the  whole  life  of 
every  Jew,  was  completed  and  prescribed  as  an  authoritative 
code  for  Israel  before  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  we  have  an 
absolute  rule  for  measuring  the  whole  future  history  of  the 
nation,  and  the  whole  significance  of  subsequent  revelation 
under  the  Old  Testament. 

On  the  one  hand,  the  religious  history  of  Israel  can  be 
nothing  else  than  the  history  of  the  nation's  obedience  or 
disobedience  to  the  law.  Nothing  could  be  added  to  the  law 
and  nothing  taken  from  it  till  the  time  of  fulfilment,  when 
the  type  should  pass  away  and  be  replaced  by  the  living 
reality  of  the  manifestation  of  Christ  Jesus.  So  long  as 
the  old  dispensation  lasted,  the  law  remained  an  absolute 
standard.  The  Israelite  had  no  right  to  draw  a  distinction 
between  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  law.  The  sacrifices 
and  other  tjrpical  ordinances  might  not  be  of  the  essence  of 
religion.  But  obedience  to  God's  word  undoubtedly  was  so, 
and  that  word  had  in  the  most  emphatic  manner  enjoined 
the  sacrifices  and  other  ceremonies,  and  made  the  forgiveness 
of  Israel's  sins  to  depend  on  them.  The  priestly  atonement 
was  a  necessary  part  of  God's  covenant.  "  The  priest  shall 
make  atonement  for  him,  and  he  shall  be  forgiven."  To 
neglect  these  means  of  grace  is,  according  to  the  Pentateuch, 
nothing  less  than  the  sin  committed  with  a  high  hand,  for 
which  there  is  no  forgiveness. 

Again,  on  the  other  hand,  the  position  that  the  whole 
legal  system  was  revealed  to  Israel  at  the  very  beginning  of 
its  national  existence  strictly  limits  our  conception  of  the 
function  and  significance  of  subsequent  revelation.  The 
prophets  had  no  power  to  abrogate  any  part  of  the  law,  to 
dispense  with  Mosaic  ordinances,  or  institute  new  means  of 
grace,  other  methods  of  approach  to  God  in  lieu  of  the 
hierarchical  sacraments.      For  the  Old   Testament  way   of 


232  TRADITIONAL    THEORY  lect.  viii 

atonement  is  set  forth  in  the  Pentateuch  as  adequate  and 
efficient.  According  to  Christian  theology,  its  efficiency  as  a 
typical  system  was  conditional  on  the  future  bringing  in  of  a 
perfect  atonement  in  Christ.  But  for  that  very  reason  it 
was  not  to  be  tampered  with  until  Christ  came.  The  pro- 
phets, like  the  law  itself,  could  only  point  to  a  future  atone- 
ment ;  they  were  not  themselves  saviours,  and  could  do 
nothing  to  diminish  the  need  for  the  temporary  provisions  of 
the  hierarchical  system ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  prophets 
did  not  abolish  the  Pentateuch  or  any  part  of  the  Levitical 
system.  IS'ay,  it  is  just  as  their  work  closes  that  we  find  the 
Pentateuchal  code  solemnly  advanced,  in  the  reformation  of 
Ezra,  to  a  position  of  public  authority  which  it  had  never 
held  before. 

Hence  the  traditional  view  of  the  Pentateuch  necessarily 
regards  the  prophets  as  ministers  and  exponents  of  the  law. 
Their  business  was  to  enforce  the  observance  of  the  law  on 
Israel  and  to  recall  the  people  from  backsliding  to  a  strict 
conformity  with  its  precepts.  According  to  the  Jewish  view, 
this  makes  their  work  less  necessary  and  eternal  than  the 
law.  Christian  theologians  avoid  this  inference,  but  they  do 
so  by  laying  stress  on  the  fact  that  the  reference  to  a  future 
and  perfect  atonement,  which  lay  implicitly  in  the  typical 
ordinances  of  the  ceremonial  law,  was  unfolded  by  the  pro- 
phets in  the  clear  language  of  evangelical  prediction.  We 
have  been  taught  to  view  the  prophets  as  exponents  of  the 
spiritual  elements  of  the  law,  who  showed  the  people  that  its 
precepts  were  not  mere  forms  but  veiled  declarations  of  the 
spiritual  truths  of  a  future  dispensation  which  was  the  true 
substance  of  the  shadows  of  the  old  ritual.  This  theory  of 
the  work  of  the  prophets  is  much  more  profound  than  that 
of  the  Ptabbins.  But  it  implies,  as  necessarily  as  the  Jewish 
view,  that  the  prophets  were  constantly  intent  on  enforcing 
the  observance  of  the  ceremonial  as  well  as  the  moral  pre- 


LECT.  VIII         OF    THE    WORK    OF    THE    PROPHETS  233 


cepts  of  the  Pentateuch.  Neglect  of  the  ritual  law  was  all 
the  more  culpable  wheu  the  spiritual  meaning  of  its  precepts 
was  made  plain. 

I  think  that  it  will  be  admitted  that  in  this  sketcli  I  have 
correctly  indicated  the  theory  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensa- 
tion which  orthodox  theologians  derive  from  the  traditional 
view  as  to  the  date  of  the  Pentateuch.  I  ask  you  to  observe 
that  it  is  essentially  the  Ptabbinical  view  supplemented  by  a 
theory  of  typology ;  but  I  also  ask  you  to  observe  that  it  is 
perfectly  logical  and  consistent  in  all  its  parts.  It  is,  so  far 
as  one  can  see,  the  only  theory  which  can  be  built  on  the 
premisses.  It  has  only  one  fault.  The  standard  which  it 
applies  to  the  history  of  Israel  is  not  that  of  the  contem- 
porary historical  records,  and  the  account  which  it  gives  of 
the  work  of  the  prophets  is  not  consistent  with  the  writings 
of  the  prophets  themselves. 

This  may  seem  a  strong  statement,  but  it  is  not  lightly 
made,  and  it  expresses  no  mere  personal  opinion,  but  the 
growing  conviction  of  an  overwhelming  weight  of  the  most 
earnest  and  sober  scholarship.  The  discrepancy  between  the 
traditional  view  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  plain  statements 
of  the  historical  books  and  the  Prophets  is  so  marked  and  so 
fundamental  that  it  can  be  made  clear  to  every  reader  of 
Scripture.  It  is  this  fact  which  compels  us,  in  the  interests 
of  practical  theology — nay,  even  in  the  interests  of  Christian 
apologetic — to  go  into  questions  of  Pentateuch  criticism.  Por 
if  the  received  view  which  assigns  the  whole  Pentateuch 
to  Moses  is  inconsistent  with  the  concordant  testimony  of 
the  Earlier  and  Later  Prophets,  we  are  brought  into  this 
dilemma : — Either  the  Old  Testament  is  not  the  record  of  a 
self-consistent  scheme  of  revelation,  of  one  great  and  con- 
tinuous work  of  a  revealing  and  redeeming  God,  or  else  the 
current  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  must  be  given 
up.     Here  it  is  that  criticism  comes  in  to  solve  a  problem 


234  THE    LAW    AND    THE  lect.  viii 

which  in  its  origin  is  not  merely  critical,  but  springs  of  neces- 
sity from  the  very  attempt  to  understand  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation  as  a  whole.  For  the  contradiction  which  cannot 
be  resolved  on  traditional  assumptions  is  at  once  removed 
when  the  critic  points  out  within  the  Pentateuch  itself  clear 
marks  that  the  whole  law  was  not  written  at  one  time,  and  that 
the  several  documents  of  which  it  is  composed  represent  suc- 
cessive developments  of  the  fundamental  principles  laid  dow^n 
by  Moses,  successive  redactions  of  the  sacred  law  of  Israel 
corresponding  to  the  very  same  stages  in  the  progress  of 
revelation  which  are  clearly  marked  in  the  history  and  the 
prophetic  literature.  Thus  the  apparent  discordance  between 
the  several  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  record  is  removed,  and 
we  •  are  able  to  see  a  consistent  divine  purpose  ruling  the 
whole  dispensation  of  the  Old  Covenant,  and  harmoniously 
displayed  in  every  part  of  the  sacred  record.  To  develop  this 
argument  in  its  essential  features,  fitting  the  several  parts  of 
the  record  into  their  proper  setting  in  the  history  of  revela- 
tion, is  the  object  which  I  propose  for  our  discussion  of  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets.  Of  the  critical  or  constructive  part 
of  the  argument  I  can  give  only  the  main  outlines,  for  many 
details  in  the  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  turn  on  nice  ques- 
tions of  Hebrew  scholarship.  But  the  results  are  broad  and 
intelligible,  and  possess  that  evidence  of  historical  consistency 
on  which  the  results  of  special  scholarship  are  habitually 
accepted  by  the  mass  of  intelligent  men  in  other  branches  of 
historical  inquiry. 

Such,  then,  is  the  plan  of  our  investigation ;  and,  first  of 
all,  let  us  compare  the  evidence  of  the  Bible  history  with  the 
traditional  theory  already  sketched.  In  working  out  this 
part  of  the  subject  I  shall  confine  your  attention  in  the  first 
instance  to  the  books  earlier  than  the  time  of  Ezra,  and  in 
particular  to  the  histories  in  the  Earlier  Prophets,  from 
Judges  to  Second  Kings.      I  exclude  the  Book  of  Joshua 


LECT.  VIII  HISTORICAL    BOOKS  235 

because  it  in  all  its  parts  hangs  closely  together  with  the 
Pentateuch.  The  difficulties  which  it  presents  are  identical 
with  those  of  the  Books  of  Moses,  and  can  only  be  explained 
in  connection  with  the  critical  analysis  of  the  law.  And,  on 
the  other  hand,  I  exclude  the  narrative  of  Chronicles  for 
reasons  which  have  been  sufficiently  explained  at  the  close 
of  Lecture  V.  The  tendency  of  the  Chronicler  to  assume 
that  the  institutions  of  his  own  age  existed  under  the  old 
kingdom  makes  his  narrative  useless  for  the  purpose  now  in 
hand,  where  we  are  expressly  concerned  with  the  differences 
between  ancient  and  modern  usage.  Let  me  observe,  how- 
ever, that  the  proposal  to  test  the  traditional  theory  of  the 
Pentateuch  by  the  old  historical  books  is  one  which  no  fair 
controversialist  can  refuse,  even  if  he  has  not  made  up  his 
mind  as  to  the  value  of  the  testimony  of  the  Chronicler ;  for, 
in  all  historical  questions,  the  ultimate  appeal  is  to  contem- 
porary sources,  or  to  those  sources  which  approach  most 
nearly  to  the  character  of  contemporary  witnesses. 

Every  reader  of  the  Old  Testament  history  is  familiar 
with  the  fact  that  from  the  days  of  the  Judges  down  to  v/ 
the  Exile  the  law  was  never  strictly  enforced  in  Israel.  The 
history  is  a  record  of  constant  rebellion  and  shortcomings, 
and  the  attempts  at  reformation  made  from  time  to  time 
were  comparatively  few  and  never  thoroughly  carried  out. 
The  deflections  of  the  nation  from  the  standard  of  the 
Pentateuch  come  out  most  clearly  in  the  sphere  of  wor- 
ship. In  the  time  of  the  Judges  the  religious  condition 
of  the  nation  was  admittedly  one  of  anarchy.  The  leaders 
of  the  nation,  divinely -appointed  deliverers  like  Gideon 
and  Jephthah,  who  were  zealous  in  Jehovah's  cause,  were 
as  far  from  the  Pentateuchal  standard  of  righteousness  as 
the  mass  of  the  people.  Gideon  erects  a  sanctuary  at 
Ophrah,  with  a  golden  ephod — apparently  a  kind  of  image 
— which  became   a  great   centre   of  illegal  worship   (Jud. 


236  THE    LAW   AND    THE  lect.  viii 

viii.  24  sqq.) ;  Jeplitbah  offers  his  own  daughter  to  Jehovah  ; 
the  Lord  departs  from  Samson,  not  when  he  marries  a 
daughter  of  the  uncircumcised,  but  when  his  Nazarite  locks 
are  shorn. 

The  revival  under  Samuel,  Saul,  and  David  was  marked 
by  great  zeal  for  Jehovah,  but  brought  no  reform  in  matters 
of  glaring  departure  from  the  law.  Samuel  sacrifices  on 
many  high  places,  Saul  builds  altars,  David  and  his  son 
Solomon  permit  the  worship  at  the  high  places  to  con- 
tinue, and  the  historian  recognises  this  as  legitimate 
because  the  Temple  was  not  yet  built  (1  Kings  iii.  2-4). 
In  Northern  Israel  this  state  of  things  was  never  changed. 
The  high  places  were  an  established  feature  in  the  king- 
dom of  Ephraim,  and  Elijah  himself  declares  that  the 
destruction  of  the  altars  of  Jehovah — all  illegitimate  ac- 
cording to  the  Pentateuch — is  a  breach  of  Jehovah's  covenant 
(1  Kings  xix.  10).  In  the  Southern  Kingdom  it  was  not 
otherwise.  It  is  recorded  of  the  best  kings  before  Hezekiah 
that  the  high  places  were  not  removed  by  them ;  and  in 
the  eighth  century  B.C.  the  prophets  describe  the  ^vorship 
of  Ephraim  and  Judah  in  terms  practically  identical.  Even 
the  reforms  of  Hezekiah  and  Josiah  w^ere  imperfectly  carried 
through ;  and  important  points  of  ritual,  such  as  the  due 
observance  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  were  still  neglected 
(Neh.  viii.  17).  These  facts  are  not  disputed.  The  question 
is  how  we  are  to  interpret  them. 

The  prophets  and  the  historical  books  agree  in  represent- 
ing the  history  of  Israel  as  a  long  record  of  disobedience  to 
Jehovah,  of  which  captivity  w^as  the  just  punishment.  But 
the  precise  nature  of  Israel's  sin  is  often  misunderstood.  "We 
are  accustomed  to  speak  of  it  as  idolatry,  as  the  worship  of 
false  gods  in  place  of  Jehovah ;  and  in  a  certain  sense  this 
corresponds  with  the  language  of  the  sacred  books.  In  the 
judgment  of  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  the  mass  of 


LECT.  viir  HISTORICAL    BOOKS  237 

the  Israelites,  not  merely  in  the  Northern  Kingdom  but 
equally  in  Judah,  had  rebelled  against  Jehovah,  and  did 
not  pay  Him  worship  in  any  true  sense.  But  that  was 
far  from  being  the  opinion  of  the  false  worshippers  them- 
selves. They  were  not  in  conscious  rebellion  against  Jehovah 
and  His  covenant.  On  the  contrary,  their  religion  was  based 
on  two  principles,  one  of  which  is  the  fundamental  principle 
of  Old  Testament  revelation,  while  the  second  is  the  principle 
that  underlies  the  whole  system  of  ritual  ordinance  in  the 
Pentateuch.  The  first  principle  in  the  popular  religion  of 
Israel,  acknowledged  by  the  false  w^orshippers  as  well  as  by 
the  prophets,  was  that  Jehovah  is  Israel's  God,  and  that 
Israel  is  the  people  of  Jehovah  in  a  distinctive  sense.  And 
with  this  w^ent  a  second  principle,  that  Israel  is  bound  to  do 
homage  to  its  God  in  sacrifice,  and  to  serve  Him  diligently 
and  assiduously  according  to  an  established  ritual. 

Let  me  explain  this  point  more  fully.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  the  worship  of  heathen  deities,  such  as  the  Tyrian  Baal 
or  the  Sidonian  Astarte,  and  the  local  gods  and  goddesses  of 
lesser  Canaanite  sanctuaries,  was  not  unknown  in  ancient 
Israel.  Solomon  and  Ahab  even  went  so  far  as  to  erect 
temples  to  foreign  gods  (1  Kings  xi.  4  sqq.  compared  with 
2  Kings  xxiii.  13  ;  1  Kings  xvi.  32)  out  of  complaisance 
to  their  foreign  wives;  and  though  these  shrines  seem  to 
have  been  primarily  designed  for  the  convenience  of  the 
heathen  princesses  and  their  countrymen  resident  in  the 
land  of  Israel,  they  w^ere  not  exclusively  frequented  by 
foreigners.  But  as  a  rule,  an  Israelite  who  bowed  the  knee 
to  a  strange  god  did  not  suppose  that  in  so  doing  he  was 
renouncing  his  allegiance  to  Jehovah  as  his  national  God 
and  the  chief  object  of  his  homage.  Even  Ahab,  of  whose 
Baal-w^orship  we  hear  so  much,  never  proposed  to  give  up 
the  God  of  Israel  for  the  god  of  Tyre.  The  state  religion 
was  still  Jehovah-worship,  and  it  was  Jehovah's  prophets 


238  Israel's  worship  lect.vhi 

that  were  consulted  in  affairs  of  state  (1  Kings  xxii.).  More- 
over, the  foreign  worship  introduced  by  Ahab  had  only  a 
temporary  vogue.  The  mass  of  the  people  soon  came  to 
regard  it,  with  the  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha,  as  an 
apostasy  from  Jehovah,  who  would  tolerate  no  rival  within 
his  land ;  and  in  Jehu's  revolution  the  alien  temple  was 
destroyed  and  its  worshippers  ruthlessly  put  to  death. 
Most  certainly,  then,  the  national  disobedience  with  which 
the  prophets  charge  their  countrymen  was  not  denial  that 
Jehovah  is  Israel's  God,  with  a  paramount  claim  to  the 
service  and  worship  of  the  nation.  On  the  contrary,  the 
prophets  represent  their  contemporaries  as  full  of  zeal  for 
Jehovah,  and  confident  that  they  have  secured  His  help 
by  their  great  assiduity  in  His  service  (Amos  iv.  4  sq.,  v. 
18  s^.  ;  Hosea  vi. ;  Isa.  i.  11  sq. ;  Micah  iii.  11 ;  Jer.  vii.). 

To  obtain  a  precise  conception  of  what  this  means,  we 
must  look  more  closely  at  the  notion  of  worship  under 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  To  us  worship  is  a 
spiritual  thing.  We  lift  up  our  hearts  and  voices  to  God 
in  the  closet,  the  family,  or  the  church,  persuaded  that 
God,  who  is  spirit,  will  receive  in  every  place  the  worship 
of  spirit  and  truth.  But  this  is  strictly  a  New  Testament 
conception,  announced  as  a  new  thing  by  Jesus  to  the 
Samaritan  woman,  who  raised  a  question  as  to  the  dis- 
puted prerogative  of  Zion  or  Gerizim  as  the  place  of 
acceptable  worship.  Under  the  New  Covenant  neither 
Zion  nor  Gerizim  is  the  mount  of  God.  Under  the  Old 
Testament  it  was  otherwise.  Access  to  God — even  to 
the  spiritual  God — was  limited  by  local  conditions.  There 
is  no  worship  without  access  to  the  deity  before  whom 
the  worshipper  draws  nigh  to  express  his  homage.  We 
can  draw  near  to  God  in  every  act  of  prayer  in  the 
heavenly  sanctuary,  through  the  new  and  living  way  which 
Jesus  has  consecrated  in  His  blood.     But  the  Old  Testament 


LECT.  VIII  UNDP]R    THE    KINGS  239 


worshipper  sought  access  to   God  iu  an  earthly  sanctuary 
which  was  for  him,  as  it  were,  the  meeting-place  of  heaven 
and  earth.      Such  holy  points  of  contact  with  the  divine 
presence  were  locally  fixed,  and  their  mark  was  the  altar, 
where  the  worshipper  presented  his  homage,  not  in  purelv 
spiritual  utterance,  but   in  the  material  form  of  an  altar 
gift.      The  promise  of  blessing,  or,  as  we  should  now  call 
it,  of  answer  to  prayer,  is  in  the  Old  Testament  strictly 
attached  to  the  local  sanctuary.     "In  every  place  where  I 
set  the  memorial  of  my  name,  I  will  come  unto  thee  and 
bless  thee"  (Exod.  xx.  24).     Every  visible  act  of  worship 
is   subjected   to   this   condition.       In   the   mouth   of   Saul, 
"to    make    supplication    to   Jehovah"   is    a   synonym   for 
doing   sacrifice   (1   Sam.  xiii.   12).      To  David,  banishment 
from  the  land  of  Israel  and  its  sanctuaries  is  a  command 
to    serve    other  gods    (1    Sam.   xxvi.    19  ;    compare   Deut. 
xxviii.  36,  64).     And  the  worship  of  the  sanctuary  impera- 
tively  demands   the   tokens   of  material  homao-e,    the   f^ift 
without  which  no  Oriental  would  approach  even  an  earthly 
court.      ''None    shall    appear    before    me    empty"    (Exod. 
xxiii.   15).      Prayer  without  approach  to  the  sanctuary  is 
not  recognised  as  part  of  the  "  service  of  Jehovah " ;  and 
for  him  who  is  at  a  distance  from  the  holy  place,  a  vow, 
such  as  Absalom  made  at  Geshur  in  Syria  (2  Sam.  xv.  8), 
is  the  natural  surrogate  for  the  interrupted  service  of  the 
altar.      The  essence  of  a  vow  is  a  promise  to  do  sacrifice 
or  other  offering  at  the  sanctuary  (Deut.  xii.  6 ;  Lev.  xxvii. ; 
1  Sam.  i.  21 ;  compare  Gen.  xxviii.  20  sq.). 

This  conception  of  the  nature  of  divine  worship  is  the 
basis  alike  of  the  Pentateuchal  law  and  of  the  popular 
religion  of  Israel  described  in  the  historical  books  and 
condemned  by  the  prophets.  The  sanctuary  of  Jehovah, 
the  altar  and  the  altar  gifts,  the  sacrifices  and  the  solemn 
feasts,   the   tithes   and   the   free-will   offerings,   were  never 


240  Israel's  worship  lect.  vm 

treated  with  indifference  (Amos  iv.  4,  viii.  5 ;  Hosea  viii. 
13  ;  Isa.  i.  11  sq, ;  Jer.  vii.).  On  the  contrary,  the  charge 
which  the  prophets  constantly  hurl  against  the  people  is 
that  they  are  wholly  absorbed  in  affairs  of  worship  and 
ritual  service,  and  think  themselves  to  have  secured 
Jehovah's  favour  by  the  zeal  of  their  external  devotion, 
without  the  practice  of  justice,  mercy,  and  moral  obedience. 

The  condition  of  religious  affairs  in  Northern  Israel  is 
clearly  described  by  the  prophets  Amos  and  Hosea.  These 
prophets  arose  under  the  dynasty  of  Jehu,  the  ally  of 
Elisha  and  the  destroyer  of  Baal -worship,  a  dynasty  in 
which  the  very  names  of  the  kings  denote  devotion  to 
the  service  of  Jehovah.  Jehovah  was  worshipped  in  many 
sanctuaries  and  in  forms  full  of  irregularity  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  Pentateuch.  There  were  images  of 
Jehovah  under  the  form  of  a  calf  or  steer  in  Bethel  and 
Dan,  and  probably  elsewhere.  The  order  of  the  local 
sanctuaries,  and  the  religious  feasts  celebrated  at  them, 
had  much  in  common  with  the  idolatry  of  the  Canaanites. 
Indeed  many  of  the  high  places  were  old  Canaanite 
sanctuaries.  Nevertheless  these  sanctuaries  and  their  wor- 
ship were  viewed  as  the  fixed  and  normal  provision  for 
the  maintenance  of  living  relations  between  Israel  and 
Jehovah.  Hosea  predicts  a  time  of  judgment  when  this 
service  shall  be  suppressed.  "The  children  of  Israel  shall 
sit  many  days  without  sacrifice  and  without  magceba, 
without  ephod  and  teraphim."  This  language  expresses 
the  entire  destruction  of  the  religious  order  of  the  nation, 
a  period  of  isolation  from  all  access  to  Jehovah,  like  the 
isolation  of  a  faithful  spouse  whom  her  husband  keeps  shut 
up,  not  admitting  her  to  the  privileges  of  marriage  (Hos.  iii.).^ 

1  The  English  version  of  Hosea  iii.  does  not  clearly  express  the  prophet's 
thought.  Hosea's  wife  had  deserted  him  for  a  stranger.  But  though  she  is 
thus  "in  love  with  a  paramour,  and  unfaithful,"  his  love  follows  her,  and  he 
buys  her  back  out  of  the  servile  condition  into  which  she  appears  to  have 


LECT.  VIII  UNDER    THE    KINGS  241 

It  appears,  then,  that  sacrifice  and  maggeha,  ephod  and  tera- 
phim,  were  recognised  as  the  necessary  forms  and  instruments 
of  the  worsliip  of  Jehovah.  They  were  all  old  traditional 
forms,  not  the  invention  of  modern  will  -  worship.  The 
maggeha,  or  consecrated  stone,  so  often  named  in  the  Old 
Testament  where  our  version  unfortunately  renders  "  image," 
is  as  old  as  the  time  of  Jacob,  who  set  up  and  consecrated 
the  memorial  stone  that  marked  Bethel  as  a  sanctuary.  It 
was  the  necessary  mark  of  every  high  place,  Canaanite  as 
well  as  Hebrew,  and  is  condemned  in  the  Pentateuchal  laws 
against  the  high  places  along  with  the  associated  symbol  of 
the  sacred  tree  or  pole  (ashera,  E.  V.  grove),  which  was  also 
a  feature  in  the  patriarchal  sanctuaries.  (The  oak  of  Moreh, 
Gen.  xii.  6,  7 ;  the  tamarisk  of  Beersheba,  Gen.  xxi.  33 ;  Gen. 
xxxi.  45,  54;  Gen.  xxxiii.  20,  with  xxxv.  4;  Jos.  xxiv.  26; 
Hos.  iv.  13.)  The  ephod  is  also  ancient.  It  must  have  been 
something  very  different  from  the  ephod  of  the  high  priest, 
but  is  to  be  compared  with  the  ephods  of  Gideon  and  Micah 
(Judges  viii.  27,  xvii.  5),  and  with  that  in  the  sanctuary  of 
Nob  (1  Sam.  xxi.  9).  Finally,  teraphim  are  a  means  of 
divination  (Ezek.  xxi.  21 ;  Zech.  x.  2)  as  old  as  the  time  of 
Jacob,  and  were  found  in  Micah's  sanctuary  and  David's 
house  (1  Sam.  xix.  13 ;  E.  Y.  image)} 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  national  worship  of  Jehovah, 
under  the  dynasty  of  Jehu,  was  conducted  under  traditional 

fallen.  She  is  brought  back  from  shame  and  servitude,  but  not  to  the 
privileges  of  a  wife.  She  must  sit  alone  by  her  husband,  reserved  for  him, 
but  not  yet  restored  to  the  relations  of  wedlock.  So  Jehovah  will  deal  with 
Israel,  when  by  destroying  the  state  and  the  ordinances  of  worship  He  breaks 
oflf  all  intercourse,  not  only  between  Israel  and  the  Baalim,  but  between 
Israel  and  Himself. 

1  On  the  ephod,  see  Vatke,  Bibl.  Thcologie  (1835),  p.  267  sq. ;  Studer  on 
Judges  viii.  27.  Tlie  passages  wliere  teraphim  are  mentioned  in  the  Hebrew 
but  not  in  the  English  version  are,  Gen.  xxxi.  19,  34,  35  ;  1  Sam.  xv.  23, 
xix.  13,  16  ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  24  ;  Zech.  x.  2.  Compare,  as  to  their  nature, 
Spencer,  De  Legihus  Ritualihus  Eehroeorum,  Lib.  iii.  c.  3,  §  2  sq.  On  the 
ma(^geba  and  ashera  see  my  Religion  of  the  Semites,  vol.  i.  (1889),  Lect.  5. 

i6 


242  HEBREW   WOESHIP  lect.  viii 

forms  which  had  a  fixed  character  and  general  recognition. 
These  forms  were  ancient.  There  is  no  reason  to  think  that 
the  worship  of  the  northern  shrines  liad  undergone  serious 
modifications  since  the  days  of  the  Judges.  The  sanctuaries 
themselves  were  of  ancient  and,  in  great  part,  of  patriarchal 
consecration.  Beersheba,  Gilgal,  Bethel,  Shechem,  Mizpah, 
were  places  of  the  most  venerable  sanctity,  acknowledged  by 
Samuel  and  earlier  worthies.  Of  the  sanctuary  at  Dan  we 
know  the  whole  origin  and  history.  It  was  founded  by  the 
Danites  who  carried  off  Micah's  Levite  and  holy  things  ;  and 
the  family  of  the  Levite,  who  was  himself  a  grandson  of 
Moses,  continued  in  office  through  the  age  of  David  and 
Samuel  down  to  the  Captivity  (Jud.  xviii.  30).  It  was  a 
sanctuary  of  purely  Israelite  origin,  originally  instituted  by 
]\iicah  for  the  service  of  Jehovah,  and  equipped  with  every 
regard  to  the  provision  of  an  acceptable  service.  "  Now  I 
know,"  said  Micah,  "  that  Jehovah  will  do  me  good,  since  I 
have  got  the  Levite  as  my  priest."  This  trait  indicates  an 
interest  in  correct  ritual  which  never  died  out.  In  truth, 
ritual  is  never  deemed  unimportant  in  a  religion  so  little 
spiritual  as  that  of  the  mass  of  Israel.  All  worships  that 
contain  heathenish  elements  are  traditional,  and  nothing  is 
more  foreign  to  them  than  the  arbitrary  introduction  of  forms 
for  which  there  is  no  precedent  of  usage. 

That  this  traditional  service  and  ritual  was  not  Levitically 
correct  needs  no  proof.  Let  us  rather  consider  the  features 
which  mark  it  as  unspiritual  and  led  the  prophets  to  condemn 
it  as  displeasing  to  God. 

In  the  first  place,  we  observe  that  though  Jehovah  was 
worshipped  with  assiduity,  and  worshipped  as  the  national 
God  of  Israel,  there  was  no  clear  conception  of  the  funda- 
mental difference  between  Him  and  the  gods  of  the  nations. 
This  appears  particularly  in  the  current  use  of  images,  like 
the  golden  calves,  which  were  supposed  to  be  representations 


LECT.  VIII  UNDER    THE    KINGS  243 

or  symbols  of  Jehovali.  But,  indeed,  the  whole  service  is 
represented  by  tlie  prophets  as  gross,  sensual,  and  unwortliy 
of  a  spiritual  deity  (Amos  ii.  7,  8 ;  Hosea  iv.  13,  14).  We 
know  that  many  features  in  the  worship  of  the  high  places 
were  practically  identical  wdth  the  abominations  of  tlie 
Canaanites,  and  gave  no  expression  to  the  difference  between 
Jehovah  and  the  false  gods.  Thus  it  came  about  that  the 
Israelites  fell  into  what  is  called  syncretism  in  religion. 
They  were  unable  sharply  to  distinguish  between  the  local 
w^orship  of  Jehovah  and  the  worship  of  the  Canaanite 
Baalim.  The  god  of  the  local  sanctuary  was  adored  as 
Jehovah,  but  a  local  Jehovah  was  practically  a  local  Baal. 
This  confusion  of  thought  may  be  best  illustrated  from  the 
Madonna  -  worship  of  Eoman  Catholic  shrines.  Every 
Madonna  is  a  representation  of  the  one  Virgin  ;  but  practi- 
cally each  Virgin  has  its  own  merits  and  its  own  devotees, 
so  that  the  service  of  these  shrines  is  almost  indistinguishable 
from  polytheism,  of  which,  indeed,  it  is  often  an  historical 
continuation.  In  Phoenicia  one  still  sees  grottoes  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  which  are  old  shrines  of  Astarte,  bearing 
the  symbols  of  the  ancient  worship  of  Canaan.  So  it  was 
in  those  days.  The  worship  of  the  one  Jehovah,  who  was 
Himself  addressed  in  old  times  by  the  title  of  Baal  or  Lord 
{supra,  p.  68),  practically  fell  into  a  worship  of  a  multitude 
of  local  Baalim,  so  that  a  prophet  like  Hosea  can  say  that 
the  Israelites,  though  still  imagining  themselves  to  be  serving 
the  national  God,  and  acknowledging  His  benefits,  have  really 
turned  from  Him  to  deities  that  are  no  gods. 

In  this  way  another  fault  came  in.  The  people,  whose 
worship  of  Jehovah  was  hardly  to  be  distinguished  from  a 
gross  polytheism,  could  not  be  fundamentally  averse  to 
worship  other  gods  side  by  side  with  the  national  deity. 
Thus  the  service  of  Astarte,  Tammuz,  or  other  deities 
that  could  not  even  in  popular  conception  be  identified  with 


244  HEBREW   WORSHIP  lect.  viii 

Jehovah,  obtained  a  certain  currency,  at  least  in  sections  of 
the  nation.  This  worship  was  always  secondary,  and  was 
put  down  from  time  to  time  in  movements  of  reformation 
which  left  the  high  places  of  Jehovah  untouched  (1  Sam. 
vii.  3  ;  1  Kings  xv.  12  sq. ;  2  Kings  x.  28,  29,  xi.  18). 

This  sketch  of  the  popular  religion  of  Israel  is  mainly 
drawn  from  the  Northern  Kingdom.  But  it  is  clear  from  the 
facts  enumerated  that  it  was  not  a  mere  innovation  due  to 
the  schism  of  Jeroboam.  Jeroboam,  no  doubt,  lent  a  certain 
6clat  to  the  service  of  the  royal  sanctuaries,  and  the  golden 
calves  gave  a  very  different  conception  of  Jehovah  from  that 
which  was  symbolised  by  the  ark  on  Zion.  But  the  elements 
of  the  whole  worship  were  traditional,  and  were  already 
current  in  the  age  of  the  Judges.  Gideon's  golden  ephod 
and  the  graven  image  at  Dan  prove  that  even  image-worship 
was  no  innovation  of  Jeroboam.  And  it  is  certain  that  the 
worship  of  the  Judaean  sanctuaries  was  not  essentially  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  northern  shrines.  The  high  places 
flourished  undisturbed  from  generation  to  generation.  The 
land  was  full  of  idols  (Isa.  ii.).  Jerusalem  appears  to  Micah 
as  the  centre  of  a  corrupt  Judaean  worship,  which  he  parallels 
with  the  corrupt  worship  of  Samaria  (Micah  i.  5,  iii.  12,  v.  11 
sg[.,  vi.  16). 

Where,  then,  did  this  traditional  worship,  so  largely  diffused 
through  the  mass  of  Israel,  have  its  origin,  and  what  is  its 
historical  relation  to  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  No  doubt 
many  of  its  corrupt  features  may  be  explained  by  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Canaanites ;  and  from  the  absolute  standard  of 
spiritual  religion  applied  by  the  prophets  it  might  even  be 
said  that  Israel  had  forsaken  Jehovah  for  the  Baalim.  But 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  worshippers  it  was  not  so.  They 
still  believed  themselves  loyal  to  Jehovah.  Their  great 
sanctuaries  were  patriarchal  holy  places  like  Bethel  and 
Beersheba,  or  purely  Hebrew  foundations  like  Dan.     With 


I 


LECT.  VIII  UNDER   THE   KINGS  245 

all  its  corruptions,  their  worship  had  a  specifically  national 
character.  Jehovah  never  was  a  Canaanite  God,  and  the 
roots  of  the  popular  religion,  as  we  have  already  seen,  were 
that  acknowledgment  of  Jehovah  as  Israel's  God,  and  of  the 
duty  of  national  service  to  Him,  which  is  equally  the  basis 
of  Mosaic  orthodoxy.^  These  are  principles  which  lie  behind 
the  first  beginnings  of  Canaanite  influence.  But  in  the 
Pentateuch  these  principles  are  embodied  in  a  ritual  alto- 
gether diverse  in  system  and  theory,  as  well  as  in  detail, 
from  the  traditional  ritual  of  the  high  places.  The  latter 
service  is  not  merely  a  corrupt  copy  of  the  Mosaic  system, 
with  elements  borrowed  from  the  Canaanites.  In  the  Levi- 
tical  ritual  the  essentials  of  Jehovah-worship  are  put  in  a 
form  which  made  no  accommodation  to  heathenism  possible, 
which  left  no  middle  ground  between  the  pure  worship  of 
Jehovali,  as  maintained  by  the  Aaronic  priesthood  in  the  one 
sanctuary,  and  a  deliberate  rejection  of  Israel's  God  for  the 
idols  of  the  heathen. 

To  understand  this  point  we  must  observe  that  according 
to  the  Levitical  system  God  is  absolutely  inaccessible  to  man, 
except  in  the  priestly  ritual  of  the  central  sanctuary.  Con- 
troversial writers  on  the  law  of  the  one  sanctuary  have  often 
been  led  to  overlook  this  point  by  confining  their  attention 
to  the  law  of  the  sanctuary  in  Deuteronomy,  which  speaks  of 

^  After  the  conclusive  remarks  of  Kuenen  {Godsdienst,  i.  398  sq.)  it  is  un- 
necessary to  spend  words  on  the  theory,  which  still  crops  up  from  time  to 
time,  that  the  Hebrews  borrowed  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (or  Jahw^,  as  the 
name  should  rather  be  pronounced)  from  the  Canaanites.  Further,  the  judg- 
ment pronounced  by  Baudissin  in  1876  {Studien,  vol.  i.  No.  3),  and  confirmed 
by  Kuenen  in  1882  {Hihhert  Lectures,  p.  311),  still  holds  its  ground  ;  there 
is  no  valid  evidence  that  a  god  bearing  the  name  of  lahwe  (or  some  equivalent 
form  such  as  lahu)  was  known  to  any  other  Semitic  people.  See  further  on 
this  point  and  on  other  questions  connected  with  the  name  a  paper  by 
Professor  Driver  in  Studia  Biblica,  i.  (Oxford,  1885).  The  statement  of 
Professor  Sayce,  Fresh  Light  (1890),  p.  63,  that  the  form  lahwe  or  Yahveh, 
as  it  is  often  WTitten,  is  incompatible  with  the  form  Yaliu  (-iahu,  -iah)  which 
appears  in  proper  names  \e.g.  Hiskiyahu,  the  Hezekiah  of  our  Bibles],  is  due 
to  haste  or  to  ignorance. 


246  THE    LEVITICAL  lect.  viii 

the  choice  of  one  place  in  Canaan  where  Jehovah  will  set 
His  name  as  a  practical  safeguard  against  participation  in 
the  worship  of  Canaanite  high  places.  But  if  the  whole 
Pentateuch  is  one  Mosaic  system,  the  law  of  Deuteronomy- 
must  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  legislation  of  the  Middle 
Books.  Here  the  theory  of  the  one  sanctuary  is  worked  out 
on  a  basis  independent  of  the  question  of  heathen  shrines. 
According  to  the  Old  Testament,  worship  is  a  tryst  between 
man  and  God  in  the  sanctuary,  and  the  question  of  the 
legitimate  sanctuary  is  the  question  of  the  place  where 
Jehovah  has  promised  to  hold  tryst  with  His  people,  and 
the  conditions  which  He  lays  down  for  this  meeting.  The 
fundamental  promise  of  the  Levitical  legislation  is  Exod. 
xxix.  42  sq.  The  place  of  tryst  is  the  Tent  of  Tryst  or 
Meeting,  incorrectly  rendered  in  the  Authorised  Version, 
"The  tabernacle  of  the  congregation."  "There  will  I  hold 
tryst  with  the  children  of  Israel,  and  it  shall  be  sanctified  by 
my  glory.  And  I  will  sanctify  the  tent  of  meeting  and  the 
altar,  and  I  will  sanctify  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  do  priestly 
service  to  me.  And  I  will  dwell  in  the  midst  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  will  be  their  God."  The  tent  of  meeting  is 
God's  mishkan,  His  dwelling-place,  which  He  sets  in  the 
midst  of  Israel  (Lev.  xxvi.  11).  The  first  condition  of  divine 
blessing  in  Lev.  xxvi.  is  reverence  for  the  Sabbath  and  the 
sanctuary,  and  the  total  rejection  of  idols  and  of  the  maggeha 
which  was  the  mark  of  the  high  places.  There  is  no  local 
point  of  contact  between  heaven  and  earth,  no  place  where 
man  can  find  a  present  God  to  receive  his  worship,  save  this 
one  tent  of  meeting,  where  the  ark  with  the  Cherubim  is  the 
abiding  symbol  that  God  is  in  the  midst  of  Israel,  and  the 
altar  stands  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  as  the  legitimate 
place  of  Israel's  gifts.  This  sanctuary  with  its  altar  is  the 
centre  of  Israel's  holiness.  It  is  so  holy  that  it  is  hedged 
round  by  a  double  cordon  of  sacred   ministers.      For  the 


LECT.  VIII  SANCTUARY  247 

presence  of  Jehovah  is  a  terrible  thing,  destructive  to  sinful 
man.  The  Old  Testament  symbol  of  Jehovah's  manifestation 
to  His  people  is  the  lightning  flash  from  behind  the  thunder 
cloud,  fire  involved  in  smoke,  an  awful  and  devouring  bright- 
ness consuming  all  that  is  not  holy.  Therefore  the  dreadful 
spot  where  His  holiness  dwells  may  never  be  approached 
without  atoning  ritual  and  strict  precautions  of  ceremonial 
sanctity  provided  for  the  priests,  and  for  none  other.  Even 
the  Levites  may  not  touch  either  ark  or  altar,  lest  both  they 
and  the  priests  die  (N'um.  xviii.  3).  Still  less  dare  the  laity 
draw  near  to  the  tabernacle  (Num.  xvii.  13  [28]).  It  is  only 
the  sons  of  Aaron  who,  by  their  special  consecration,  can  bear 
with  impunity  "the  guilt  of  the  sanctuary"  (xviii.  1);  and 
so  every  sacred  offering  of  the  Israelite,  every  gift  which 
expresses  the  people's  homage,  must  pass  through  their  hand 
and  pay  toll  to  them  (Num.  xviii.  8  sq.).  Thus  the  access  of 
the  ordinary  Israelite  to  God  is  very  restricted.  He  can  only 
stand  afar  off  while  the  priest  approaches  Jehovah  as  his 
mediator,  and  brings  back  a  word  of  blessing.  And  even 
this  mediate  access  to  God  is  confined  to  his  visits  to  the 
central  sanctuary.  The  stated  intercourse  of  God  with  His 
people  is  not  the  concern  of  the  whole  people,  but  of  the 
priests,  who  are  constantly  before  God,  offering  up  on  behalf 
of  the  nation  the  unbroken  service  of  the  continual  daily 
oblations.  This  is  a  great  limitation  of  the  freedom  of 
worship.  But  it  is  no  arbitrary  restriction.  On  the  Levi- 
tical  theory,  the  imperfection  of  the  ordinary  holiness  of 
Israel  leaves  no  alternative  open.  For  the  holiness  of  God 
is  fatal  to  him  who  dares  to  come  near  His  dwelHng-place. 

On  this  theory  the  ritual  of  the  sanctuary  is  no  artificial 
system  devised  to  glorify  one  holy  place  above  others,  but  the 
necessary  scheme  of  precaution  for  every  local  approach  to 
God.  Other  sanctuaries  are  not  simply  less  holy,  places  of 
less  solemn  tryst  with  Jehovah ;  they  are  places  where  His 


248  ALL    SLAUGHTER  lect.  viii 

holiness  is  not  revealed,  and  therefore  are  not,  and  cannot  be, 
sanctuaries  of  Jehovah  at  all.  If  Jehovah  were  to  meet  with 
man  in  a  second  sanctuary,  the  same  consequences  of  in- 
violable holiness  would  assert  themselves,  and  the  new  holy 
place  would  again  require  to  be  fenced  in  with  equal  ritual 
precautions.  In  the  very  nature  of  the  covenant,  there  is 
but  one  altar  and  one  priesthood  through  which  the  God  of 
Israel  can  be  approached. 

The  popular  religion  of  Israel,  with  its  many  sanctuaries, 
proceeds  on  a  theory  diametrically  opposite.  Opportunity 
of  access  to  Jehovah  is  near  to  every  Israelite,  and  every 
occasion  of  life  that  calls  on  the  individual,  the  clan,  or  the 
village,  to  look  Godwards  is  a  summons  to  the  altar.  In  the 
family  every  feast  was  an  eucharistic  sacrifice.  In  affairs  of 
public  life  it  was  not  otherwise.  The  very  phrases  in  Hebrew 
for  "  making  a  covenant "  or  "  inaugurating  war  "  point  to  the 
sacrificial  observances  that  accompanied  such  acts.  The 
earlier  history  relates  scarcely  one  event  of  importance  that 
was  not  transacted  at  a  holy  place.  The  local  sanctuaries 
were  the  centres  of  all  Hebrew  life.  How  little  of  the 
history  would  remain  if  Shechem  and  Bethel,  the  two 
Mizpahs  and  Ophra,  Gilgal,  Eamah,  and  Gibeon,  Hebron, 
Bethlehem,  and  Beersheba,  Kedesh  and  Mahanaim,  Tabor  and 
Carmel,  were  blotted  out  of  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament.^ 

^  In  some  of  these  cases,  evidence  that  the  place  was  a  sanctuary  may  be 
demanded.  Kedesh  is  proved  to  be  so  by  its  very  name,  with  which  it 
agrees  that  it  was  a  Levitical  city  and  a  consecrated  asyhim.  Accordingly  it 
formed  the  rendezvous  of  Zebulon  and  Naphtali  under  Barak  and  Deborah. 
Mahanaim  Avas  the  place  of  a  theophany,  from  which  it  had  its  name.  It 
was  also  a  Levitical  city,  and  Cant.  vi.  13  alludes  to  the  "dance  of 
Mahanaim,"  which  was  probably  such  a  festal  dance  as  took  place  at  Shiloh 
(Jud.  xxi.  21).  As  a  holy  place  the  town  was  the  seat  of  Ishbosheth's  king- 
dom, and  the  headquarters  of  David's  host  during  the  revolt  of  Absalom. 
Tabor,  on  the  frontiers  of  Zebulon  and  Issachar,  seems  to  be  the  mountain 
alluded  to  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  18,  19,  as  the  sanctuary  of  these  tribes,  and  it 
appears  along  with  Mizpah,  as  a  seat  of  degenerate  priests,  in  Hos.  v.  1.  The 
northern  Mizpah  is  identical  with  Ramoth  Gilead  and  with  the  sanctuary  of 
Jacob  (Gen.  xxxi.  45  sq.). 


LECT.  VIII 


IS    SACRIFICE  249 


This  different  and  freer  conception  of  the  means  of  access 
to  God,  the  desire  which  it  embodies  to  reahse  Jehovah's 
presence  in  acts  of  worship,  not  at  rare  intervals  only  but  in 
every  concern  of  life,  cannot  be  viewed  as  a  mere  heathenish 
corruption  of  the  Levitical  system.  This  fact  comes  out  most 
clearly  in  the  point  which  brings  out  the  contrast  of  the  two 
systems  in  its  completest  form. 

In  the  traditional  popular  Jehovah-worship,  to  slay  an  ox 
or  a  sheep  for  food  was  a  sacrificial  act,  and  the  flesh  of  the 
victim  was  not  lawful  food  unless  the  blood  or  life  had  been 
poured  out  before  Jehovah.  The  currency  of  this  view  is 
presupposed  in  the  Pentateuchal  legislation.  Thus  in  Lev. 
xvii.  it  appears  as  a  perpetual  statute  that  no  domestic  animal 
can  be  lawfully  slain  for  food,  unless  it  be  presented  as  a 
peace-offering  before  the  central  sanctuary,  and  its  blood 
sprinkled  on  the  altar.  One  has  no  right  to  slay  an  animal 
on  other  conditions.  The  life,  which  lies  in  the  blood,  comes 
from  God  and  belongs  to  Him.  The  man  who  does  not 
recognise  this  fact,  but  eats  the  flesh  with  the  blood,  "  hath 
shed  blood,  and  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people"  (ver.  4; 
comp.  Gen.  ix.  4).  In  Deuteronomy  this  principle  is  pre- 
supposed, but  relaxed  by  a  formal  statute.  Those  who  do  not 
live  beside  the  sanctuary  may  eat  flesh  without  a  sacrificial 
act,  if  they  simply  pour  out  the  blood  upon  the  ground  (Deut. 
xii.  20  sq.).  The  old  rule,  it  would  seem,  might  still  hold 
good  for  every  animal  slain  within  reach  of  the  holy  place. 
Now,  under  the  conditions  of  Eastern  life,  beef  and  mutton 
are  not  everyday  food.  In  Canaan,  as  among  the  Arabs  at 
this  day,  milk  is  the  usual  diet  (Prov.  xxvii.  26,  27  ;  Jud.  iv. 
19).  The  slaughter  of  a  victim  for  food  marks  a  festal  occa- 
sion, and  the  old  Hebrew  principle  modified  in  Deuteronomy 
means  that  all  feasts  are  religious,  tliat  sacred  occasions  and 
occasions  of  natural  joy  and  festivity  are  identical.'^     Under 

^  Except  at  a  feast,  or  to  entertain  a  guest,  or  in  sacrifice  before  a  local 


250  EVERY    FEAST 


LECT.  VIII 


the  full  Levitical  system  this  principle  was  obsolete,  or  at 
least  could  assert  itself  only  in  the  vicinity  of  the  sanctuary, 
and  in  connection  with  the  three  great  festive  gatherings  at 
Passover,  Pentecost,  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  But  in 
the  actual  history  of  the  nation  the  principle  was  not  yet 
obsolete.  Thus  in  1  Sam.  xiv.,  when  the  people,  in  their  fierce 
hunger  after  the  battle  of  Michmash,  fly  on  the  spoil  and, 
slaying  beasts  on  the  ground,  eat  them  with  the  blood — i.e.  as 
we  see  from  Lev.  xvii.,  without  offering  the  blood  to  Jehovah 
— Saul  rebukes  their  transgression,  erects  a  rude  altar  in  the 
form  of  a  great  stone,  and  orders  the  people  to  kill  their 
victims  there.  A  feast  and  a  sacrifice  are  still  identical  in 
the  Book  of  Proverbs,  which  speaks  the  ordinary  language  of 
the  people.  Compare  Pro  v.  xv.  17  with  xvii.  1,  and  note  the 
inducement  offered  to  the  foolish  young  man  in  chap.  vii.  14. 
In  Hosea  ii.  11  all  mirth  is  represented  as  connected  with 
religious  ceremonies.  But  the  most  conclusive  passage  is 
Hosea  ix.  3  sq.,  where  the  prophet  predicts  that  in  the  Exile 
all  the  food  of  the  people  shall  be  unclean,  because  sacrifice 
cannot  be  performed  beyond  the  land  of  Israel.  They  shall 
eat,  as  it  were,  the  unclean  bread  of  mourners,  "  because  their 
necessary  food  shall  not  be  presented  in  the  house  of  Jehovah." 
In  other  words,  all  animal  food  not  presented  at  the  altar  is 
unclean  ;  the  whole  life  of  the  people  becomes  unclean  when 
they  leave  the  land  of  Jehovah  to  dwell  in  an  "  unclean  land  " 
(Amos  vii.  17).  We  see  from  this  usage  how  closely  the 
practice  of  sacrifice  in  every  corner  of  the  land  was  inter- 
shrine,  the  Bedouin  tastes  no  meat  but  the  flesh  of  the  gazelle  or  other  game. 
This  throws  light  on  Deut.  xii.  16,  22,  which  shows  that  in  old  Israel  game 
was  the  only  meat  not  eaten  sacrificially.  That  flesh  was  not  eaten  every 
day  even  by  wealthy  people  appears  very  clearly  from  Nathan's  parable  and 
from  the  Book  of  Ruth.  The  wealthy  man,  like  the  Arab  sheikh,  ate  the 
same  fare  as  his  workmen.  According  to  311  Nodes  (Calcutta  edition,  ii. 
276),  eating  flesh  is  one  of  the  three  elements  of  high  enjoyment. 

The  rule  that  all  legitimate  slaughter  is  sacrificial  is  not  confined  to  old 
Israel.  Distinct  traces  of  the  same  view  survived  in  Arabia  down  to  the  time 
of  Mohammed  ;  see  Wellhausen,  Arab.  Heidenthum,  p.  114. 


i-ECT.  VIII  A  SACRIFICE  251 


woven  with  the  whole  life  of  the  nation,  and  how  absolute 
was  the  contrast  between  the  traditional  conception  of  sacri- 
ficial intercourse  between  Jehovah  and  His  people  and  that 
which  is  expressed  in  the  Levitical  law.  But  we  see  also 
that  the  popular  conception  is  not  a  new  thing  superadded  to 
the  Levitical  system  from  a  foreign  source,  but  an  old  tradi- 
tional principle  of  Jehovah -worship  prior  to  the  law  of 
Deuteronomy.  When  did  this  principle  take  root  in  the 
nation  ?  ;N"ot  surely  in  the  forty  years  of  wandering,  when, 
according  to  the  express  testimony  of  Amos  v.  25,  sacrifices 
and  offerings  were  not  presented  to  Jehovah. 

But  let  this  pass  in  the  meantime.     We  are  not  now 
concerned  to  trace  the  history  of  the  ordinances  of  worship 
in  Israel,  but  only  to  establish  a  clear  conception  of  the 
essential  difference  between  the  old  popular  worship  and  the 
finished  Levitical  system.     The  very  foundation  of  revealed 
religion  is  the  truth  that  man  does  not  first  seek  and  find 
God,  but  that  God  in  His  gracious  condescension  seeks  out 
man,  and  gives  him  such  an  approach  to  Himself  as  man 
could  not  enjoy  without  the  antecedent  act  of  divine  self- 
communication.     The  characteristic  mark  of  each  dispensa- 
tion of  revealed  religion  lies  in  the  provision  which  it  makes 
for  the  acceptable  approach  of  the  worshipper  to  his  God. 
Under   the   Levitical   dispensation  all  approach  to  God  is 
limited  to  the  central   sanctuary,  and   passes  of  necessity 
through  the  channel  of  the  priestly  mediation  of  the  sons  of 
Aaron.     The  worshipping  subject  is,  strictly  speaking,  the 
nation  of  Israel  as  a  unity,  and  the  function  of  worship  is 
discharged  on  behalf  of  the  nation  by  the  priests  of  God's 
choice.    The  religion  of  the  individual  rests  on  this  basis.    It 
is  only  the  maintenance  of  the  representative  national  service 
of  the  sanctuary  which  gives  to  every  Israelite  the  assurance 
that  he  stands  under  the  protection  of  the  national  covenant 
with  Jehovah,  and  enables  him  to  enjoy  a  measure  of  such 


252  THE    PSALMS   AND  lect.  viii 

personal  spiritual  fellowship  with  God  as  can  never  be  lack- 
ing in  true  religion.  But  the  faith  with  which  the  Israelite 
rested  on  God's  redeeming  love  had  little  direct  opportunity 
to  express  itself  in  visible  acts  of  homage.  The  sanctuary 
was  seldom  accessible,  and  in  daily  life  the  Hebrew  believer 
could  only  follow  with  an  inward  longing  and  spiritual 
sympathy  the  national  homage  which  continually  ascended 
on  behalf  of  himself  and  all  the  people  of  God  in  the  stated 
ritual  of  the  Temple.  Hence  that  eager  thirst  for  participa- 
tion in  the  services  of  the  sanctuary  which  is  expressed  in 
Psalms  like  the  forty-second :  "  My  soul  thirsteth  for  God  the 
living  God ;  when  shall  I  come  and  appear  before  the  face  of 
God  ? "  "  Send  forth  thy  light  and  thy  truth ;  let  them  guide 
me ;  let  them  bring  me  to  thy  holy  mountain,  even  unto  thy 
dwelling-place."  This  thirst,  seldom  satiated,  which  fills  the 
Psalter  with  expressions  of  passionate  fervour  in  describing 
the  joys  of  access  to  God's  house,  was  an  inseparable  feature 
of  the  Levitical  system.  After  the  Exile,  the  necessity  for 
more  frequent  acts  of  overt  religion  was  partly  supplied  by 
the  synagogues ;  but  these,  in  so  far  as  they  provided  a  sort 
of  worship  without  sacrifice,  were  already  an  indication  that 
the  dispensation  was  inadequate  and  must  pass  away.  All 
these  experiences  are  in  the  strongest  contrast  to  the  popular 
religious  life  before  the  Captivity.  Then  the  people  found 
Jehovah,  and  rejoiced  before  Him,  in  every  corner  of  the 
land,  and  on  every  occasion  of  life. 

This  contrast  within  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  pre- 
sents no  difficulty  if  we  can  affirm  that  the  popular  religion  was 
altogether  false,  that  it  gave  no  true  access  to  Jehovah,  and 
must  be  set  on  one  side  in  describing  the  genuine  religious 
life  of  Israel.  But  it  is  a  very  different  thing  if  we  find  that 
the  true  believers  of  ancient  Israel — prophets  like  Samuel, 
righteous  men  like  David — placed  themselves  on  the  stand- 
point of  the  local  sanctuaries,  and  framed  their  own  lives  on 


LECT.  vni  THE    SANCTUARY  253 


the  assumption  that  God  is  indeed  to  be  found  in  service 
non-Levitical.  If  the  whole  Pentateuch al  system  is  really  as 
old  as  Moses,  the  popular  worship  has  none  of  the  marks  of  a 
religion  of  revelation ;  it  sought  access  to  God  in  services  to 
which  He  had  attached  no  promise.  And  yet  we  shall  find, 
in  the  next  Lecture,  that  for  long  centuries  after  Moses,  all 
the  true  religion  of  Israel  moved  in  forms  which  departed 
from  the  first  axioms  of  Levitical  service,  and  rested  on  the 
belief  that  Jehovah  may  be  acceptably  worshipped  under  the 
popular  system,  if  only  the  corruptions  of  that  system  are 
guarded  against.  It  was  not  on  the  basis  of  the  Pentateuchal 
theory  of  worship  that  God's  grace  ruled  in  Israel  during  the 
age  of  the  Judges  and  the  Kings,  and  it  was  not  on  that  basis 
that  the  prophets  taught. 


LECTUEE   IX 

THE   LAW   AND   THE   HISTORY   OF   ISRAEL   BEFORE 
THE   EXILE 

In  the  last  Lecture  I  tried  to  exhibit  to  you  the  outlines  of 
the  popular  worship  of  the  mass  of  Israel  in  the  period  before 
the  Captivity,  as  sketched  in  the  Books  of  Kings  and  in  the 
contemporary  prophets.  In  drawing  this  sketch  I  directed 
your  attention  particularly  to  two  points.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  popular  religion  has  a  basis  in  common  with  the  Penta- 
teuchal  system :  both  alike  acknowledge  Jehovah  as  the  God 
of  Israel,  who  brought  His  people  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ; 
both  recognise  that  Israel's  homage  and  worship  are  due  to 
Jehovah,  and  that  the  felicity  of  the  people  in  the  land  of 
Canaan  is  dependent  on  His  favour.  But  along  with  this  we 
found  that  between  the  popular  worship  and  the  system 
of  the  Pentateuch  there  is  a  remarkable  contrast.  In  the 
Levitical  system  access  to  God  is  only  to  be  attained  through 
the  mediation  of  the  Aaronic  priests  at  the  central  sanctuary. 
The  whole  worship  of  Israel  is  narrowed  to  the  sanctuary  of 
the  ark,  and  there  the  priests  of  God's  consecration  conduct 
that  representative  service  which  is  in  some  sense  the  worship 
of  the  whole  people.  The  ordinary  Israelite  meets  with  God 
in  the  sanctuary  only  on  special  occasions,  and  during  the 
great  part  of  his  life  must  be  content  to  stand  afar  off,  follow- 
ing with  distant  sympathy  that  continual  service  which  is 


KKCAPITULATION  255 


going  ou  for  him  at  Jerusalem  in  the  hands  of  the  Temple 
priests.  In  the  popular  religion,  on  the  contrary,  the  need  of 
constant  access  to  God  is  present  to  every  Israelite.  Oppor- 
tunities of  worship  exist  in  every  corner  of  the  land ;  and 
every  occasion  of  importance,  whether  for  the  life  of  the 
individual  or  for  the  family,  village,  or  clan,  is  celebrated  by 
some  sacrificial  rite  at  the  local  sanctuary.  We  saw,  further, 
that,  as  these  two  types  of  religion  are  separated  by  a  funda- 
mental difference,  so  also  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  the 
popular  worship  is  merely  a  corruption  of  the  Levitical  theory 
under  the  influence  of  Canaanite  idolatry.  It  is  indeed  very 
natural  to  suppose  that  the  system  of  the  Law,  the  distance 
that  it  constitutes  between  Jehovah  and  the  ordinary  worship- 
per, was  too  abstract  for  the  mass  of  Israel.  It  may  well  be 
thought  that  the  mass  of  the  people  in  those  days  could  not 
be  satisfied  with  the  kind  of  representative  worship  conducted 
on  their  behalf  in  the  one  sanctuary,  and  that  they  felt  a 
desire  to  come  themselves  into  immediate  contact  with  the 
Deity  in  personal  acts  of  service  embodied  in  sacrifice.  But 
if  the  Levitical  theory  was  the  starting-point  it  is  pretty  clear 
that  this  would  rather  lead  the  unspiritual  part  of  Israel  to 
worship  other  gods  side  by  side  with  Jehovah,  local  and 
inferior  deities,  just  as  in  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  the 
distance  between  God  and  the  ordinary  layman  leads  the 
mass  of  the  people  to  approach  the  saints  and  address  them- 
selves to  them  as  more  accessible  helpers.  But  that  is  not 
what  we  find  in  Israel.  We  do  not  find  that  a  sense  of  the 
inaccessibility  of  Jehovah,  as  represented  in  the  system  of 
the  Pentateuch,  led  Israel  for  the  most  part  to  serve  other 
gods,  although  that  also  happened  in  special  circumstances. 
They  held  that  Jehovah  Himself  could  be  approached  and 
acceptably  worshipped  at  a  multitude  of  sanctuaries  not 
acknowledged  in  the  system  of  the  Law,  and  at  which,  accord- 
ing to  that  system,  God  had  given  no  promise  whatever  to 


256  THE    REFORMATION  lect.  ix 

meet  with  His  people.  It  can  hardly  be  questioned  that  the 
idea  of  meeting  with  Jehovah  at  the  local  sanctuaries  and  of 
doing  acceptable  service  to  Him  there  had  survived  from  a 
time  previous  to  the  enactment  of  the  law  of  the  middle  books 
of  the  Pentateuch.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the 
lineaments  of  the  popular  religion  as  displayed  in  the  historical 
books  have  much  that  is  akin  to  the  worship  of  the  patriarchs, 
and  in  particular  that  many  of  the  sanctuaries  of  Israel  were 
venerated  as  patriarchal  shrines. 

^Nevertheless,  if  Moses  left  the  whole  Levitical  system  as 
a  public  code,  specially  entrusted  to  the  priests  and  leaders  of 
the  nation,  that  code  must  have  influenced  at  least  the  4lite  of 
Israel.  Its  provisions  must  have  been  kept  alive  at  the  central 
sanctuary,  and,  in  particular,  the  revealing  God,  who  does  not 
contradict  Himself,  must  have  based  upon  the  law  His  further 
communications  to  the  people,  and  His  judgment  upon  their 
sins  spoken  through  His  prophets.  He  cannot  have  stamped 
with  His  approval  a  popular  system  entirely  ignoring  the 
fundamental  conditions  of  His  intercourse  with  Israel.  And 
the  history  must  bear  traces  of  this.  God's  word  does  not 
return  unto  Him  void  without  accomplishing  that  which  He 
pleaseth,  and  succeeding  in  the  thing  whereto  He  sends  it 
(Isa.  Iv.  11). 

Now  it  is  certain  that  the  first  sustained  and  thorough 
attempt  to  put  down  the  popular  worship,  and  establish  an 
order  of  religion  conformed  to  the  written  law,  was  under 
King  Josiah.  An  essay  in  the  same  direction  had  been  made 
by  Hezekiah  at  the  close  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.  (2  Kings 
xviii.  4,  22).  Of  the  details  of  Hezekiah's  reformation  we 
know  little.  It  was  followed  by  a  violent  and  bloody  reaction 
under  his  successor  Manasseh,  and  in  Josiah's  time  the  whole 
work  had  to  be  done  again  from  the  beginning.  Hezekiah 
evidently  acted  in  harmony  with  Isaiah  and  his  fellow- 
prophets  ;  but  neither  in  the  history  nor  in  their  writings  is 


OF    JOSIAH  257 


anything  said  of  the  written  law  as  the  rule  and  standard  of 
reformation.  In  the  case  of  Josiah  it  was  otherwise.  The 
reformation  in  his  eighteenth  year  (621  B.C.)  was  based  on 
the  Book  of  the  Law  found  in  the  Temple,  and  was  carried 
out  in  pursuance  of  a  solemn  covenant  to  obey  the  law,  made 
by  the  king  and  the  people  in  the  house  of  Jehovah.  This 
is  an  act  strictly  parallel  to  the  later  covenant  and  reforma- 
tion under  Ezra.  But  it  did  not  amount,  like  Ezra's  reforma- 
tion, to  a  complete  establishment  of  the  whole  ritual  system 
of  the  Pentateuch.  The  Book  of  Nehemiah  expressly  says 
as  much  with  respect  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  And  the 
same  fact  comes  out  in  regard  to  the  order  of  the  priestly 
ministrations  at  the  Temple.  For,  while  Josiah  put  to  death 
the  priests  of  the  high  places  of  Ephraim,  he  brought  the 
priests  of  the  Judaean  high  places  to  Jerusalem,  where  they 
were  not  allowed  to  minister  at  the  altar,  but  "  ate  unleavened 
bread  in  the  midst  of  their  brethren"  (2  Kings  xxiii.  8,  9). 
The  reference  here  is  to  the  unleavened  bread  of  the  Temple 
oblations,  which,  on  the  Levitical  law,  was  given  to  the  sons 
of  Aaron,  to  be  eaten  in  the  court  of  the  sanctuary  (Lev.  vi. 
14-18 ;  Num.  xviii.  9).  It  appears,  then,  that  the  priests  of 
the  local  high  places  were  recognised  as  brethren  of  the 
Temple  priests,  and  admitted  to  a  share  in  the  sacred  dues, 
though  not  to  full  altar  privileges.  This  was  unquestionably 
a  grave  Levitical  irregularity,  for,  though  it  appears  from 
Ezek.  xliv.  10  sg^q.  that  the  priests  of  the  high  places  were 
Levites,  it  is  not  for  a  moment  to  be  supposed  that  they  were 
all  sons  of  Aaron  (compare  Neh.  vii.  63  sq^.).  This  point 
wiU  come  up  again  along  with  other  indications  that  the 
worship  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem  was  not  established  by 
Josiah  in  full  conformity  with  the  Levitical  system.  All 
that  I  ask  you  to  carry  with  you  at  present  is  that  Josiah's 
reformation,  although  based  upon  the  Book,  and  explicitly 
taking  it  as  the  standard,  did  not  go  the  whole  length  of  that 

17 


258  JOSIAH'S   reformation  lect.  IX 

Pentateuclial  system  which  we  now  possess.  In  truth,  when 
we  compare  the  reformation  of  Josiah,  as  set  forth  in  Second 
Kings,  with  what  is  written  in  the  Pentateuch,  we  observe 
that  everything  that  Josiah  acted  upon  is  found  written  in 
one  or  other  part  of  Deuteronomy.  So  far  as  the  history 
goes,  there  is  no  proof  that  his  "  Book  of  the  Covenant "  was 
anything  more  than  the  law  of  Deuteronomy,  which,  in  its 
very  form,  appears  to  have  once  been  a  separate  volume.^ 

No  one  can  read  2  Kings  xxii.  xxiii.  without  observing 
how  entirely  novel  was  the  order  of  things  which  Josiah 
introduced.  Before  the  Book  of  the  Law  was  read  to  him, 
Josiah  was  interested  in  holy  things,  and  engaged  in  the  work 
of  restoring  the  Temple.  But  the  necessity  for  a  thorough 
overturn  of  the  popular  sanctuaries  came  on  him  as  a  thing 
entirely  new.  It  is  plain,  too,  that  he  had  to  consider 
established  privileges  and  a  certain  legitimate  status  on  the 
part  of  the  priests  of  the  high  places.     There  was  in  Judsea  a 

^  Critics  distinguish  in  Deuteronomy  the  legislative  code  (chaps,  xii.- 
xxvi. )  and  the  framework,  which  appears  to  contain  pieces  by  more  than  one 
hand.  As  the  book  now  stands  the  laws  are  preceded  by  two  introductory 
discourses,  Deut.  i.  1-iv.  43,  Deut.  v.-xi.  To  the  second  of  these  is  prefixed 
a  title,  chap.  iv.  44-49,  which  is  evidently  meant  to  cover  the  code  of  chaps, 
xii.-xxvi.,  while  again  the  verses  xxvi.  16-19  form  a  sort  of  subscription  or 
colophon  to  the  code.  In  all  probability,  therefore,  the  code  once  stood, 
along  with  the  second  introduction,  in  a  separate  book  corresponding  to  Deut. 
iv.  44-xxvi.  19,  to  which  Kuenen  would  add,  as  a  sort  of  appendix  from  the 
hand  of  the  original  author,  xxvii.  9,  10,  ch.  xxviii.  {Onderzoek^  i.  Ill,  122). 
There  is  no  evidence  that  Josiah  had  more  than  this  book,  and  it  is  by  no 
means  certain  that  the  code,  when  it  fell  into  his  hands,  was  already  pro- 
vided with  the  parenetic  introduction  and  appendices  ;  see  Wellhausen,  Com- 
position  (1889),  p.  189  sqq.,  p.  352.  Even  the  Fathers  identify  the  book 
found  in  the  Temple  mth  Deuteronomy.  So  Jerome,  Adv.  Jovin.  i.  5  ; 
Chrysostom,  Horn,  in  Mat.  ix.  p.  135  B.  The  relation  of  Josiah's  reformation 
to  Deuteronomy  may  be  shown  thus  : — 

2  Kings  xxiii.  3-6        ...         .         Deut.  xii,  2. 

„  xxiii.  17,  18. 

„  xviii.  6-8. 

„  xviii.  10. 

„  xvii.  3. 

„  xvi.  21,  22. 

„  xvi.  5. 

,,  xviii.  11. 


5> 

3) 

8,  9 
10 

J> 

11 
14 

» 

21 
24 

LECT.  IX  AND    DEUTERONOMY  259 

class  of  irregular  priests  called  Chemarim,  instituted  by  royal 
authority  (A.  V.  idolatrous  -priests,  2  Kings  xxiii.  5),  whom  he 
simply  put  down.  But  the  priests  of  the  popular  high  places 
were  recognised  priests  of  Jehovah,  and,  instead  of  being 
punished  as  apostates,  they  received  support  and  a  certain 
status  in  the  Temple  (xxiii.  9).  We  now  see  the  full  signi- 
ficance of  the  toleration  of  the  high  places  by  the  earlier 
kings  of  Judah.  They  were  not  known  to  be  any  breach  of 
the  religious  constitution  of  Israel.  Even  the  Temple  priests 
knew  of  no  ordinance  condemning  them.  The  high  places 
were  not  interfered  with  by  King  Jehoash  when  his  conduct 
was  entirely  directed  by  the  high  priest  Jehoiada  (2  Kings 
xii.  2,  3).  Yet  Jehoiada  had  every  motive  for  suppressing 
the  local  sanctuaries,  which  diminished  the  dues  of  the  cen- 
tral altar,  and  he  could  hardly  have  failed  to  move  in  this 
direction  if  he  had  had  the  law  at  his  back. 

These  facts  do  not  mean,  merely,  that  the  law  was  dis- 
obeyed. They  imply  that  the  complete  system  of  the  Penta- 
teuch was  not  known  in  the  period  of  the  kings  of  Judah, 
even  as  the  theoretical  constitution  of  Israel.  No  one,  even 
among  those  most  interested,  shows  the  least  consciousness 
that  the  Temple  and  its  priesthood  have  an  exclusive  claim 
on  all  the  worship  of  Israel.  And  the  local  worship,  which 
proceeds  on  a  diametrically  opposite  theory,  is  acknowledged 
as  a  part  of  the  established  ordinances  of  the  land. 

Here,  then,  the  question  rises.  Was  the  founding  of  the 
Temple  on  Zion  undertaken  as  part  of  an  attempt  to  give 
practical  force  to  the  Levitical  system  ?  Was  this,  at  least, 
an  effort  to  displace  the  traditional  religion  and  establish  the 
ordinances  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  The  whole  life  of  Solomon 
answers  this  question  in  the  negative.  His  royal  state,  of 
which  the  Temple  and  its  service  were  a  part,  was  never 
conformed  to  the  law.  He  not  only  did  not  abolish  the  local 
sanctuaries,  but  built  new  shrines,  which  stood  till  the  time 


260  THE    FOREIGN   GUARDS  lect.  ix 

of  Josiah,  for  the  gods  of  the  foreign  wives  whom,  like  his 
father  David  (2  Sam.  iii.  3),  he  married  against  the  Penta- 
teuchal  law  (1  Kings  xi. ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  13).  And  when  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy  describes  what  a  king  of  Israel  must 
not  be,  it  reproduces  line  for  line  the  features  of  the  court 
of  Solomon  (Deut.  xvii.  16  sq.).  Even  the  ordinances  of 
Solomon's  Temple  were  not  Levitically  correct.  The  two 
brazen  pillars  which  stood  at  the  porch  (1  Kings  vii.  21) 
were  not  different  from  the  forbidden  maggeha,  or  from  the 
twin  pillars  that  stood  in  front  of  Phoenician  and  Syrian 
sanctuaries ;  ^  and  1  Kings  ix.  25  can  hardly  bear  any  other 
sense  than  that  the  king  officiated  at  the  altar  in  person 
three  times  a  year.  That  implies  an  entire  neglect,  on  his 
part,  of  the  strict  law  of  separation  between  the  legitimate 
priesthood  and  laymen  ;  but  the  same  disregard  of  the  exclu- 
sive sanctity  of  the  Temple  priesthood,  and  of  that  twofold 
cordon  of  Aaronites  and  Levites  which  the  law  demands  to 
protect  the  Temple  from  profanation,  reappears  in  later  times, 
and  indeed  was  a  standing  feature  in  the  whole  history  of 
Solomon's  Temple.  The  prophet  Ezekiel,  writing  after  the 
reforms  of  King  Josiah,  and  alluding  to  the  way  in  which  the 
Temple  service  was  carried  on  in  his  own  time,  complains 
that  uncircumcised  foreigners  were  appointed  as  keepers  of 
Jehovah's  charge  in  His  sanctuary  (Ezek.  xliv.  6  sq.)}     Who 

^  Two  huge  pillars  stood  in  the  propylcea  of  the  temple  of  Hierapolis 
(Lucian,  De  Syria  Dea,  chap.  16,  28),  and  in  front  of  the  temple  at  Paphos, 
of  which  we  have  representations  on  coins  (see  Hel.  of  the  Semites,  p.  468). 
Similarly  Strabo  (iii.  5.  5)  tells  us  that  in  the  temple  of  Gades  there 
were  brazen  columns  eight  cubits  high.  The  context  shows  that  here  also  a 
pair  of  columns  is  meant. 

^  This  passage  is  so  important  that  I  give  it  in  a  translation,  slightly  cor- 
rected after  the  versions  in  verses  7,  8.  The  corrections  are  obvious,  and 
have  been  made  also  by  Smend  {Ber  Prophet  Ezechiel  erkldrt,  Leipzig,  1880). 

Ezek.  xliv.  6.  0  house  of  Israel !  Have  done  with  all  your  abomina- 
tions, (7)  in  that  ye  bring  in  foreigners  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  flesh  to 
be  in  my  sanctuary,  polluting  my  house,  when  ye  offer  my  bread,  the  fat  and 
the  blood  ;  and  so  ye  break  my  covenant  in  addition  to  all  your  abominations, 
(8)  and  keep  not  the  charge  of  my  holy  things,  but  appoint  them  as  keepers 


m   THE  TEMPLE  261 


were  these  foreigners,  iincircumcised  in  flesh  and  uncircum- 
cised  in  heart,  by  whom  the  sanctity  of  the  Temple  was 
habitually  profaned  ?  The  history  still  provides  details  which 
go  far  to  answer  this  question. 

There  was  one  important  body  of  foreigners  in  the  service 
of  the  kings  of  Judah  from  the  time  of  David  downwards, 
viz.  the  Philistine  bodyguard  (2  Sam.  xv.  18 ;  2  Kings  i.  38). 
These  foreign  soldiers  were  a  sort  of  janissaries  attached  to 
the  person  of  the  sovereign,  after  the  common  fashion  of 
Eastern  monarchs,  who  deem  themselves  most  secure  when 
surrounded  by  a  band  of  followers  uninfluenced  by  family 
connections  with  the  people  of  the  land.  The  constitution  of 
the  bodyguard  appears  to  have  remained  unchanged  to  the 
fall  of  the  Judsean  state.  The  prophet  Zephaniah,  writing 
under  King  Josiah,  still  speaks  of  men  connected  with  the 
court,  who  were  clad  in  foreign  garb  and  leaped  over  the 
threshold.  To  leap  over  the  threshold  of  the  sanctuary  is  a 
Philistine  custom  (1  Sam.  v.  5) ;  and  when  the  prophet  adds 
that  these  Philistines  of  the  court  fill  their  master's  house 

of  my  charge  in  my  sanctuary.  Therefore,  (9)  thus  saith  the  Lord,  No 
foreigner  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  flesh  shall  enter  my  sanctuary— no 
foreigner  whatever,  who  is  among  the  children  of  Israel.  (10)  But  the 
Levites,  because  they  departed  from  me  when  Israel  went  astray,  when  they 
went  astray  from  me  after  their  idols,  even  they  shall  bear  their  guilt,  (11) 
and  be  ministers  in  my  sanctuary,  officers  at  the  gates  of  the  house,  and 
ministers  of  the  house  ;  it  is  they  who  shall  kill  the  burnt-offering  and  the 
sacrifice  for  the  people,  and  it  is  they  who  shall  stand  before  them  to  minister 
unto  them.  (12)  Because  they  ministered  unto  them  before  their  idols,  and 
were  a  stumbling-block  of  guilt  to  the  house  of  Israel,  therefore  I  swear  con- 
cerning them,  saith  the  Lord  God,  that  they  shall  bear  their  guilt,  (13)  and 
shall  not  draw  near  to  me  to  do  the  office  of  a  priest  to  me,  or  to  touch  any 
of  my  holy  things— the  most  holy  things  ;  but  they  shall  bear  their  shame 
and  their  abominations  which  they  have  done.  (14)  And  I  will  make  them 
keepers  of  the  charge  of  the  house  for  all  the  service  thereof,  and  for  all  that 
is  to  be  done  about  it.  (15)  But  the  Levite  priests,  the  sons  of  Zadok,  who 
kept  the  charge  of  my  sanctuary  when  the  children  of  Israel  went  astray  from 
me— they  shall  come  near  unto  me  to  minister  unto  me,  and  they  shall  stand 
before  me  to  offer  unto  me  the  fat  and  the  blood,  saith  the  Lord  God.  They 
shall  enter  into  my  sanctuary  and  approach  my  table,  ministering  unto  me, 
and  keep  my  charge. 


262  UNCIRCUMCISED    FOREIGNERS  lect.  ix 

with  violence  and  fraud,  we  recognise  the  familiar  characters 
of  Oriental  janissaries  (Zepli.  i.  8,  9). 

The  foreign  guards,  whom  we  thus  see  to  have  continued 
to  the  days  of  Zephaniah,  had  duties  in  the  Temple  identical 
with  those  of  Ezekiel's  uncircumcised  foreigners.  For  the 
guard  accompanied  the  king  when  he  visited  the  sanctuary 
(1  Kings  xiv.  28),  and  the  Temple  gate  leading  to  the  palace 
was  called  "the  gate  of  the  foot-guards"  (2  Kings  xi.  19). 
Nay,  so  intimate  was  the  connection  between  the  Temple  and 
the  palace  that  the  royal  bodyguard  were  also  the  Temple 
guards,  going  in  and  out  in  courses  every  week  (2  Kings  xi. 
4  sg[q^.).  It  was  the  centurions  of  the  guard  who  aided  Jehoiada 
in  setting  King  Jehoash  on  the  throne ;  and  2  Kings  xi.  11, 
14,  pictures  the  coronation  of  the  young  king  while  he  stood 
by  a  j)illar,  "  according  to  custom,"  surrounded  by  the  foreign 
bodyguard,  who  formed  a  circle  about  the  altar  and  the  front 
of  the  shrine,  in  the  holiest  part  of  the  Temple  court  (com- 
pare Joel  ii.  17).-^     Thus  it  appears  that  as  long  as  Solomon's 

^  In  2  Sam.  xv.  18  the  foreign  guards  consist  of  the  Cherethites,  the 
Pelethites,  and  the  Gittites,  or  men  of  Gath.  More  commonly  we  read  of 
the  Ciierethites  and  the  Pelethites,  but  in  2  Sam.  xx.  23  the  Kethlh  has  "the 
Carite  and  the  Pelethite."  The  Carites  reappear  in  2  Kings  xi.  4  (Hebrew 
and  R.  V.)  as  forming  part  of  the  guard  at  the  coronation  of  King  Jehoash. 
The  Cherethites  lived  on  the  southern  border  of  Canaan  (1  Sam.  xxx.  14), 
and  seem  to  have  been  reckoned  as  Philistines  (Zeph.  ii.  5  ;  Ezek.  xxv.  16)  ; 
this  name  and  that  of  the  Carites  have  been  plausibly  conjectured  to  indicate 
that  the  Philistines,  who  were  immigrants  into  Canaan  from  Caphtor  (Amos 
ix.  7),  w^hich  seems  to  be  a  place  over  the  sea  (Jer.  xlvii.  4,  R.  V.),  were 
originally  connected  with  Crete  and  Caria.  Pelethite  is  probably  a  mere 
variation  of  the  name  Philistine. 

There  is,  I  think,  good  ground  for  supposing  that  the  slaughtering  of 
sacrifices,  which  Ezekiel  expressly  assigns  in  future  to  the  Levites,  was 
formerly  the  work  of  the  guards.  It  was  the  king  who  provided  the  ordi- 
nary Temple  sacrifices  (2  Chron.  viii.  13,  xxxi.  3  ;  Ezek.  xlv.  17),  and  there 
can  be  little  doubt  that  the  animals  killed  for  the  royal  table  were  usually 
oJBfered  as  peace  offerings  at  the  Temple  (Deut.  xii.  21).  In  Saul's  time,  at 
least,  an  unclean  person  could  not  sit  at  the  royal  table,  which  implies  that 
the  food  was  sacrificial  (1  Sam.  xx.  26  ;  Lev.  vii.  20  ;  Deut.  xii.  22).  Now 
the  Hebrew  name  for  "captain  of  the  guard"  is  "chief  slaughterer"  {rah 
hattabbdcMm) — an  expression  which,  so  far  as  one  can  judge  from  Syriac  and 
Arabic  as  well  as  Hebrew,  can  only  mean  slaughterer  of  cattle  (comp.  n3DD 


LECT.  IX  IN   THE    TEMPLE  263 


Temple  stood,  and  even  after  the  reforms  of  Josiah,  the  func- 
tion of  keeping  the  ward  of  the  sanctuary,  which  by  Levitical 
law  is  strictly  confined  to  the  house  of  Levi,  on  pain  of 
death  to  the  stranger  who  comes  near  (Num.  iii.  38),  devolved 
upon  uncircumcised  foreigners,  who,  according  to  the  law, 
ought  never  to  have  been  permitted  to  set  foot  within  the 
courts  of  the  Temple.  From  this  fact  the  inference  is  inevit- 
able, that  under  the  first  Temple  the  principles  of  Levitical 
sanctity  were  never  recognised  or  enforced.  Even  the  high 
priests  had  no  conception  of  the  fundamental  importance 
which  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  attach  to  the 
concentric  circles  of  ritual  holiness  around  and  within  the 
sanctuary,  an  importance  to  be  measured  by  the  consideration 
that  the  atoning  ritual  on  which  Jehovah's  forgiving  grace 
depends  presupposes  the  accurate  observance  of  every  legal 
precaution  against  profanation  of  the  holy  things.  This  being 
so,  we  cannot  be  surprised  to  find  that  the  priests  of  the 
Temple  were  equally  neglectful,  or  rather  equally  ignorant,  of 
the  correct  system  of  atoning  ordinances,  which  forms  the 
very  centre  of  the  Levitical  Law,  and  to  which  all  other 
ordinances  of  sanctity  are  subservient.  The  Levitical  sin 
offering  and  the  trespass  offering  are  not  once  mentioned 
before  the  Captivity.^  On  the  other  hand,  we  read  of  an 
established  custom  in  the  time  of  the  high  priest  Jehoiada 
that  sin  money  and  trespass  money  were  given  to  the  priests 
(2  Kings  xii.  16;  comp.  Hosea  iv.  8,  Amos  ii.  8).  This 
usage,  from  a  Levitical  point  of  view,  can  be  regarded  as 

in  a  Carthaginian  inscription  C.  I.  S.  No.  175,  1,  and  H^tD,  ibid.  237,  5  ; 
238,  2,  etc.).  So  the  bodyguard  were  also  the  royal  butchers,  an  occupation 
not  deemed  unworthy  of  warriors  in  early  times.  Eurip.  Elcctra,  815  ; 
Odys.  A.  108.  In  Lev.  i.  5,  6  it  is  assumed  that  every  man  kills  his  own 
sacrifice,  and  so  still  in  the  Arabian  desert  every  person  knows  how  to  kill 
and  dress  a  sheep. 

^  In  the  older  books  the  atoning  function  of  sacrifice  is  not  attached  to  a 
particular  class  of  oblation,  but  belongs  to  all  offerings,  to  zehach  and  mincha 
(1  Sam.  iii.  14,  xxvi.  19),  and  still  more  to  the  whole  burnt  offering  (Micah 
iv.  6,  7  ;  comp.  1  Sam.  vii.  9,  Job  i.  5). 


264  CEREMONIAL    OF  lect.  ix 

nothing  but  a  gross  case  of  simony,  the  secularising  for  the 
advantage  of  the  priests  of  one  of  the  most  holy  and  sacred 
ordinances  of  the  Levitical  system.  Yet  this  we  find  fixed 
and  established,  not  in  a  time  of  national  declension,  but  in 
the  days  of  the  reforming  king  and  high  priest  who  extirpated 
the  worship  of  Baal. 

In  truth,  the  first  Temple  had  not  that  ideal  position 
which  the  law  assigns  to  the  central  sanctuary.  It  did  not 
profess  to  be  the  one  lawful  centre  of  all  worship,  and  its 
pre-eminence  was  not  wholly  due  to  the  ark,  but  lay  very 
much  in  the  circumstance  that  it  was  the  sanctuary  of  the 
kings  of  Judah,  as  Bethel,  according  to  Amos  vii.  13,  was  a 
royal  chapel  of  the  monarchs  of  Ephraim.  The  Temple  was 
the  king's  shrine ;  therefore  his  bodyguard  were  its  natural 
servants,  and  the  sovereign  exercised  a  control  over  all  its 
ordinances,  such  as  the  Levitical  legislation  does  not  con- 
template and  could  not  approve.  We  find  that  King  Jehoash 
introduced  changes  into  the  destination  of  the  Temple  revenues. 
In  his  earlier  years  the  rule  was  that  the  priests  received 
pecuniary  dues  and  gifts  of  various  kinds  so  different  from 
those  detailed  in  the  Pentateuch,  that  it  is  impossible  for  us 
to  explain  each  one;  but,  such  as  they  were,  the  priests 
appropriated  them  subject  to  an  obligation  to  maintain  the 
fabric  of  the  Temple.  King  Jehoash,  however,  found  that 
while  the  priests  pocketed  their  dues  nothing  was  done  for 
the  repair  of  the  Temple,  and  he  therefore  ordained  that  all 
moneys  brought  into  the  Temple  should  be  paid  over  for  the 
repairs  of  the  house,  with  the  exception  of  the  trespass  and 
sin  money,  which  remained  the  perquisite  of  the  priests. 
Such  interference  with  the  sacred  dues  is  inconceivable  under 
the  Levitical  system,  which  strictly  regulates  the  destination 
of  every  offering. 

But,  indeed,  the  kings  of  Judah  regarded  the  treasury  of 
the  Temple  as  a  sort  of  reserve  fund  available  for  political 


LECT.  IX  THE    FIRST    TEMPLE  2  G  5 


purposes,  and  Asa  and  Hezekiah  drew  upon  this  source  wlien 
their  own  treasury  was  exhausted  (1  Kings  xv.  18  ;  2  Kino-s 
xviii.  15). 

With  this  picture  before  us,  we  are  no  longer  surprised  to 
find  that  the  priest  Urijah,  or  Uriah,  wliom  the  prophet  Isaiah 
took  with  him  as  a  faithful  witness  to  record  (Isa.  viii.  2), 
co-operated  with  King  Ahaz  in  substituting  a  new  altar,  on 
a  pattern  sent  from  Damascus,  for  the  old  brazen  altar  of 
Solomon,  and  in  general  allowed  the  king  to  regulate  the 
altar  service  as  he  pleased  (2  Kings  xvi.  10  sq.).  The  brazen 
altar,  which,  according  to  the  Book  of  Numbers,  even  the 
Levites  could  not  touch  without  danger  of  death,  was  reserved 
for  the  king  to  inquire  by. 

The  force  of  these  facts  lies  in  the  circumstance  that  they 
cannot  be  explained  as  mere  occasional  deviations  from  Levi- 
tical  orthodoxy.  The  admission  of  uncircumcised  strangers 
as  ministers  in  the  sanctuary  is  no  breach  of  a  spiritual  pre- 
cept which  the  hard  heart  of  Israel  was  unable  to  follow, 
but  of  a  ceremonial  ordinance  adapted  to  the  imperfect  and 
unspiritual  state  of  the  nation.  An  interest  in  correct  ritual 
is  found  in  the  least  spiritual  religions,  and  there  is  ample 
proof  that  it  was  not  lacking  in  Israel,  even  in  the  barbarous 
times  of  the  Judges.  The  system  of  ceremonial  sanctity  was 
calculated  to  give  such  eclat  to  the  Temple  and  its  priesthood 
that  there  was  every  motive  for  maintaining  it  in  force  if  it 
was  known  at  all.  But  in  reality  it  was  violated  in  every 
point.  All  the  divergences  from  Levitical  ritual  lie  in  the 
same  direction.  The  sharp  line  of  distinction  between  lay- 
men's privileges  and  priestly  functions  laid  down  in  the  Law 
has  its  rationale  in  the  theory  and  practice  of  atonement.  In 
the  Temple  we  find  irregular  atonements,  a  lack  of  precise 
grades  of  holiness,  incomplete  recognition  of  the  priestly 
prerogative,  subordination  of  the  priesthood  to  the  palace 
carried  so  far  that  Abiathar  is  deposed  from  the  priesthood, 


266  WORSHIP   AND    RITUAL  lect.  ix 

and  Zadok,  who  was  not  of  the  old  priestly  family  of  Shiloh, 
set  in  his  place,  by  a  mere  fiat  of  King  Solomon.^  And,  along 
with  this  want  of  clear  definition  in  the  inner  circles  of  cere- 
monial holiness,  we  naturally  find  that  the  exclusive  sanc- 
tity of  the  nation  was  not  understood  in  a  Levitical  sense ; 
for  not  only  Solomon  but  David  himself  intermarried  with 
heathen  nations.  Nay,  Absalom,  the  son  of  a  Syrian  princess, 
was  the  recognised  heir  to  the  throne,  which  implies  that  his 
mother  was  regarded  as  David's  principal  wife.  All  these 
facts  hang  together ;  they  show  that  the  priests  of  the 
Temple,  and  righteous  kings  like  David,  were  as  ignorant  of 
the  Levitical  theory  of  sanctity  as  the  mass  of  the  vulgar  and 
the  unrio-hteous  kinos. 

The  Temple  of  Solomon  never  stood  forth,  in  contrast  to 
the  popular  high  places,  as  the  seat  of  the  Levitical  system, 
holding  up  in  their  purity  the  typical  ordinances  of  atone- 
ment which  the  popular  worship  ignored.  The  very  features 
which  separate  the  religion  of  the  ritual  law  from  the  tradi- 
tional worship  of  the  high  places  are  those  which  the  guardians 
of  the  Temple  systematically  ignored. 

Let  us  now  go  back  beyond  the  age  of  Solomon  to  the 

1  According  to  1  Sam.  ii.  27-36  the  whole  clan  or  "father's  house"  of 
Eli,  the  family  which  received  God's  revelation  in  Egypt  with  a  promise  of 
everlasting  priesthood,  is  to  lose  its  prerogative  and  sink  to  an  inferior  posi- 
tion, in  which  its  survivors  shall  be  glad  to  crouch  before  the  new  high  priest 
for  a  place  in  one  of  the  inferior  priestly  guilds  which  may  yield  them  a 
livelihood.  As  1  Kings  ii.  27  regards  this  prophecy  as  fulfilled  in  the  substi- 
tution of  Zadok  for  Abiathar,  it  is  plain  that  the  former  did  not  belong  to 
the  high-priestly  family  chosen  in  the  wilderness.  That  his  genealogy  is 
traced  to  Aaron  and  Eleazar  in  1  Chron.  vi.  50  sq.  does  not  disprove  this, 
for  among  all  Semites  membership  of  a  guild  is  figured  as  sonship.  Thus  in 
the  time  of  the  Chronicles  sons  of  Eleazar  and  Ithamar  respectively  would 
mean  no  more  than  the  higher  and  lower  guilds  of  priests.  The  common 
theory  that  the  house  of  Eli  was  not  in  the  original  line  of  Eleazar  and 
Phinehas  is  inconsistent  with  Num.  xxv.  13  compared  with  1  Sam.  ii.  30. 
The  Chronicler  places  Ahimelech  son  of  Abiathar  in  the  lower  priesthood  of 
Ithamar  (1  Chron.  xxiv.  3,  6),  but  Abiathar  himself  is  not  connected  with 
Ithamar  by  a  genealogical  line.  The  deposition  of  the  father  reduces  the  son 
to  the  lower  fmild. 


LECT.  IX  UNDER   THE    JUDGES  267 

period  of  the  Judges,  and  the  age  of  national  revival  wliicli 
followed  under  Samuel,  Saul,  and  David.  We  need  not  again 
dwell  on  the  fact  that  the  whole  religion  of  the  time  of  the 
Judges  was  Levitically  false.  Even  the  divinely  chosen 
leaders  of  the  nation  knew  not  the  law  {supra,  p.  235  sq.). 
What  is  important  for  our  argument  is  to  observe  that 
breaches  of  the  law  were  not  confined  to  times  of  rebellion 
against  Jehovah.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  Pentateuchal 
ritual,  Israel's  repentance  was  itself  illegal  in  form.  Acts  of 
true  worship,  which  Jehovah  accepted  as  the  tokens  of  a 
penitent  heart  and  answered  by  deeds  of  deliverance,  were 
liabitually  associated  with  illegal  sanctuaries.  At  Bochim 
the  people  wept  at  God's  rebuke  and  sacrificed  to  the  Lord 
(Judges  ii.  5).  Deborah  and  Barak  opened  their  campaign 
at  the  sanctuary  of  Kedesh.  Jehovah  Himself  commanded 
Gideon  to  build  an  altar  and  do  sacrifice  at  Ophrah,  and  this 
sanctuary  still  existed  in  the  days  of  the  historian  (Judges 
vi.  24).  Jephthah  spake  all  his  words  "  before  the  Lord  "  at 
Mizpah  or  Ptamoth  Gilead,  the  ancient  sanctuary  of  Jacob, 
when  he  went  forth  in  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  to  overthrow 
the  Ammonites  (Judges  xi.  11,  29  ;  Gen.  xxxi.  45  s^(/.),and  his 
vow  before  the  campaign  was  a  vow  to  do  sacrifice  in  Mizpah. 
We  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  sacrifices  of  Gideon 
and  Manoah  as  exceptional,  and,  no  doubt,  they  were  so  if 
our  standard  is  the  law  of  the  Pentateuch.  But  in  that  case 
all  true  religion  in  that  period  was  exceptional;  for  all  God's 
acts  of  grace  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  all  His  calls 
to  repentance,  and  all  the  ways  in  which  He  appears  from 
time  to  time  to  support  His  people,  and  to  show  Himself  their 
living  God,  ready  to  forgive  in  spite  of  their  disobedience,  are 
connected  with  this  same  local  worship.  The  call  to  repent- 
ance is  never  a  call  to  put  aside  the  local  sanctuaries  and 
worship  only  before  the  ark  at  Shiloh.  On  the  contrary,  the 
narrator  assumes,  without  question,  the  standpoint  of  the 


268  WORSHIP    AND    RITUAL  lect.  ix 

popular  religion,  and  never  breathes  a  doubt  that  Jehovah 
was  acceptably  worshipped  in  the  local  shrines.  In  truth,  no 
other  judgment  on  the  case  was  possible  ;  for  through  all  this 
period  Jehovah's  gracious  dealings  with  His  people  expressed 
His  acceptance  of  the  local  worship  in  unambiguous  language. 
If  the  Pentateuchal  programme  of  worship  and  the  rules  which 
it  lays  down  for  the  administration  of  the  dispensation  of 
grace  existed  in  these  days,  they  were  at  least  absolutely 
suspended.  It  was  not  according  to  the  Law  that  Jehovah 
administered  His  grace  to  Israel  during  the  period  of  the 
Judges. 

Nevertheless  the  fundamental  requisites  for  a  practical 
observance  of  the  Pentateuchal  worship  existed  in  those 
days.  The  ark  was  settled  at  Shiloh;  a  legitimate  priest- 
hood ministered  before  it.  There  is  no  question  that  the 
house  of  Eli  were  the  ancient  priesthood  of  the  ark.  It 
was  to  the  clan,  or  father's  house,  of  Eli,  according  to  1  Sam. 
ii.  27  s^.,  that  Jehovah  appeared  in  Egypt,  choosing  him 
as  His  priest  from  all  the  tribes  of  Israel.  The  priesthood 
was  legitimate,  and  so  was  the  sanctuary  of  Shiloh,  which 
Jeremiah  calls  Jehovah's  place,  where  He  set  His  name  at 
the  first  (Jer.  vii.  12).  Here  therefore,  if  anywhere  in  Israel, 
the  law  must  have  had  its  seat ;  and  the  worship  of  Shiloh 
must  have  preserved  a  memorial  of  the  Mosaic  ritual. 

We  have  an  amount  of  detailed  information  as  to  the 
ritual  of  Shiloh  which  shows  the  importance  attached  to 
points  of  ceremonial  religion.  Shiloh  was  visited  by  pilgrims 
from  the  surrounding  country  of  Ephraim,  not  three  times  a 
year  according  to  the  Pentateuchal  law,  but  at  an  annual 
feast.  This  appears  to  have  been  a  vintage  feast,  like  the 
Pentateuchal  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  for  it  was  accompanied 
by  dances  in  the  vineyards  (Judges  xxi.  21),  and,  according 
to  the  correct  rendering  of  1  Sam.  i.  20,  21,  it  took  place 
when  the  new  year  came  in,  that  is,  at  the  close  of  the 


LECT.  IX  UNDER    THE    JUDGES  269 

agricultural  year,  which  ended  with  the  ingathering  of  the 
vintage  (Exod.  xxxiv.  22).  It  had  not  a  strictly  national 
character,  for  in  Judges  xxi.  19  it  appears  to  be  only  locally 
known,  and  to  have  the  character  of  a  village  festival.  Indeed 
a  quite  similar  vintage  feast  was  observed  at  the  Canaanite 
city  of  Shechem  (Judges  ix.  27)} 

There  was,  however,  a  regular  sacrifice  performed  by  each 
worshipper  in  addition  to  any  vow  he  might  have  made  (1 
Sam.  i.  21),  and  the  proper  due  to  be  paid  to  the  priests  on 
these  offerings  was  an  important  question.  The  great  offence 
of  Eli's  sons  was  that  they  "knew  not  Jehovah  and  the 
priests'  dues  from  the  people."  They  made  irregular  ex- 
actions, and,  in  particular,  would  not  burn  the  fat  of  the 
sacrifice  till  they  had  secured  a  portion  of  uncooked  meat  (1 
Sam.  ii.  12  sq.  E.  V.,  marg.).  Under  the  Levitical  ordinance 
this  claim  was  perfectly  regular  ;  the  worshipper  handed  over 
the  priest's  portion  of  the  flesh  along  with  the  fat,  and  part  of 
the  altar  ceremony  was  to  wave  it  before  Jehovah  (Lev.  vii. 
30  sq.,  X.  15).  But  at  Shiloh  the  claim  was  viewed  as  illegal 
and  highly  wicked.  It  caused  men  to  abhor  Jehovah's  offer- 
ing, and  the  greed  which  Eli's  sons  displayed  in  this  matter  is 
given  as  the  ground  of  the  prophetic  rejection  of  the  whole 
clan  of  priests  of  Shiloh  (1  Sam.  ii.  17,  29). 

The  importance  attached  to  these  details  shows  how  essen- 
tial to  the  religion  of  those  days  was  the  observance  of  all 
points  of  established  ritual.     But  the  ritual  was  not  that  of 

^  1  Sam.  i.  20,  21.  "  When  the  new  year  came  round,  Hannah  con- 
ceived and  bare  a  son,  and  named  him  .  .  .  and  Elkanah  went  up  with  his 
whole  household  to  sacrifice  to  Jehovah  the  yearly  sacrifice  and  his  vow." 
The  date  of  the  new  year  belongs  to  the  last  of  this  series  of  events.  Com- 
pare Wellhausen,  Prolegomena,  pp.  95,  109,  and  Driver's  notes  on  the  passage. 
The  autumn  feast  was  also  the  great  feast  at  Jerusalem  (1  Kings  viii.  2), 
and  in  the  Northern  Kingdom  (1  Kings  xii.  32). 

In  Judges  ix.  27  read,  "They  trode  the  gi-apes  and  made  hillUlim  (a 
sacred  offering  in  praise  of  God  from  the  fruits  of  the  earth.  Lev.  xix.  24), 
and  went  into  the  house  of  their  god  and  feasted,"  etc. 


270  RITUAL    OF    THE 


the  Levitical  law.  Nay,  when  we  look  at  the  worship  of 
Shiloh  more  closely,  we  find  glaring  departures  from  the  very 
principles  of  the  Pentateuchal  sanctuary.  The  ark  stood,  not 
in  the  tabernacle,  but  in  a  Temple  with  doorposts  and  folding- 
doors,  which  were  thrown  open  during  the  day  (1  Sam.  i.  9, 
iii.  15).  In  the  evening  a  lamp  burned  in  the  Temple  (1  Sam. 
iii.  3),  but  contrary  to  the  Levitical  prescription  (Exod.  xxvii. 
21 ;  Lev.  xxiv.  3)  the  light  was  not  kept  up  all  night,  but  was 
allowed  to  go  out  after  the  ministers  of  the  Temple  lay  down 
to  sleep.  Access  to  the  Temple  was  not  guarded  on  rules  of 
Levitical  sanctity.  According  to  1  Sam.  iii.  3,  Samuel,  as  a 
servant  of  the  sanctuary  who  had  special  charge  of  the  doors 
(ver.  15),  actually  slept  "  in  the  temple  of  Jehovah  where 
the  ark  of  God  was."  To  our  English  translators  this  state- 
ment seemed  so  incredible,  that  they  have  ventured  to  change 
the  sense  against  the  rules  of  the  language.  One  can  hardly 
wonder  at  them ;  for,  according  to  the  Law,  the  place  of  the 
ark  could  be  entered  only  by  the  high  priest  once  a  year,  and 
with  special  atoning  services.  And,  to  make  the  thing  more 
surprising,  Samuel  was  not  of  priestly  family.  His  father 
was  an  Ephrathite  or  Ephraimite  (1  Sam.  i.  1,  K.  V.),  and  he 
himself  came  to  the  Temple  by  a  vow  of  his  mother  to  dedicate 
him  to  Jehovah.  By  the  Pentateuchal  law  such  a  vow  could 
not  make  Samuel  a  priest.  But  here  it  is  taken  for  granted 
that  he  becomes  a  priest  at  once.  As  a  child  he  ministers 
before  Jehovah,  wearing  the  ephod  which  the  law  confines  to 
the  high  priest,  and  not  only  this,  but  the  high  priestly  mantle 
{meHl,  A.  V.  coat,  1  Sam.  ii.  18,  19).  And  priest  as  well  as 
prophet  Samuel  continued  all  his  life,  sacrificing  habitually 
at  a  variety  of  sanctuaries.  These  irregularities  are  suf- 
ficiently startling.  They  profane  the  holy  ordinances,  which, 
under  the  Law,  are  essential  to  the  legitimate  sanctuary. 
And,  above  all,  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  service  of  the  great 
day  of  expiation  could  not  have  been  legitimately  performed 


LECT.  IX  TEMPLE    AT    SHILOH  271 

in  the  Temple  of  Sliiloh,  where  there  was  no  awful  seclusion  of 
the  ark  in  an  inner  adyton,  veiled  from  every  eye,  and  inac- 
cessible on  ordinary  occasions  to  every  foot.  These  thino-s 
strike  at  the  root  of  the  Levitical  system  of  access  to  God. 
But  of  them  the  prophet  who  came  to  Eli  has  nothing  to 
say.  He  confines  himself  to  the  extortions  of  the  youn<^er 
priests. 

The  Law  was  as  little  known  in  Shiloh  as  among  the  mass 
of  the  people,  and  the  legitimate  priesthood,  the  successors  of 
Moses  and  Aaron,  are  not  judged  by  God  according  to  the 
standard  of  the  Law.  Where,  then,  during  this  time  was  the 
written  priestly  Torah  preserved  ?  If  it  lay  neglected  in  some 
corner  of  the  sanctuary,  who  rescued  it  when  the  Philistines 
destroyed  the  Temple  after  the  battle  of  Ebenezer  ?  Was  it 
carried  to  ¥ob  by  the  priests,  who  knew  it  not,  or  was  it 
rescued  by  Samuel,  who,  in  all  his  work  of  reformation, 
never  attempted  to  make  its  precepts  the  rule  of  religious 
life? 

The  capture  of  the  ark,  the  fall  of  Shiloh,  and  the  exten- 
sion of  the  Philistine  power  into  the  heart  of  Mount  Ephraim, 
were  followed  by  the  great  national  revival  successively  headed 
by  Samuel,  Saul,  and  David.  The  revival  of  patriotism  went 
hand  in  hand  with  zeal  for  the  service  of  Jehovah.  In  this 
fresh  zeal  for  religion,  affairs  of  ritual  and  worship  were  not 
neglected.  Saul,  who  aimed  at  the  destruction  of  necromancy, 
was  also  keenly  alive  to  the  sin  of  eating  flesh  with  the  blood 
(1  Sam.  xiv.  33) ;  the  ceremonially  unclean  might  not  sit  at 
his  table  (1  Sam.  xx.  26) ;  and  there  are  other  proofs  that 
ritual  observances  were  viewed  as  highly  important  (1  Sam. 
xxi.  4  s^. ;  2  Sam.  xi.  4),  though  the  details  agree  but  ill  with 
the  Levitical  ordinances.  The  religious  patriotism  of  the  period 
finds  its  main  expression  in  frequent  acts  of  sacrifice.  On  every 
occasion  of  national  importance  the  people  assemble  and  do 
service  at  some  local  sanctuary,  as  at  Mizpah  (1  Sam.  vii.  6, 


272  RITUAL    IN    THE    DAYS  lect.  ix 

9),  or  at  Gilgal  (x.  8,  xi.  15,  xiii.  4,  9,  etc.).  The  seats  of 
authority  are  sanctuaries,  Eamah,  Bethel,  Gilgal  (vii.  16,  17  ; 
comp.  X.  3),  Beersheba  (viii.  2 ;  comp.  Amos  v.  5,  viii.  14), 
Hebron  (2  Sam.  ii.  1,  xv.  12).  Saul  builds  altars  (1  Sam.  xiv. 
35) ;  Samuel  can  make  a  dangerous  visit  most  colourably  by 
visiting  a  local  sanctuary  like  Bethlehem,  with  an  offering  in 
his  hand  (1  Sam.  xvi.)  ;  and  in  some  of  these  places  there  are 
annual  sacrificial  feasts  (1  Sam.  xx.  6).  At  the  same  time  the 
ark  is  settled  on  the  hill  (Gibeah)  at  Kirjath-jearim,  where 
Eleazar  ben  Abinadab  was  consecrated  its  priest  (1  Sam.  vii. 
1).  The  priests  of  the  house  of  Eli  were  at  Nob,  where  there 
was  a  regular  sanctuary  with  shewbread,  and  no  less  than 
eighty-five  priests  wearing  a  linen  ephod  (1  Sam.  xxii.  18). 

It  is  quite  certain  that  Samuel,  with  all  his  zeal  for 
Jehovah,  made  no  attempt  to  bring  back  this  scattered 
worship  to  forms  of  legal  orthodoxy.  He  continued  to 
sacrifice  at  a  variety  of  shrines;  and  his  yearly  circuit  to 
Bethel,  Gilgal,  and  Mizpah,  returning  to  Eamah,  involved 
the  recognition  of  all  these  altars  (1  Sam.  vii.  16  ;  comp. 
X.  3,  xi.  15,  vii.  6,  9,  ix.  12). 

In  explanation  of  this  it  is  generally  argued  that  the  age 
was  one  of  religious  interregnum,  and  that  Jehovah  had  not 
designated  a  new  seat  of  worship  to  succeed  the  ruined 
sanctuary  of  Shiloh.  This  argument  might  have  some 
weight  if  the  law  of  the  one  sanctuary  and  the  one  priest- 
hood rested  only  on  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  which  puts 
the  case  as  if  the  introduction  of  a  strictly  unified  cultus  was 
to  be  deferred  till  the  peaceful  occupation  of  Palestine  was 
completed  (Deut.  xii.  8  sq.).  But  in  the  Levitical  legislation 
the  unification  of  cultus  is  not  attached  to  a  fixed  place  in  the 
land  of  Israel,  but  to  the  movable  sanctuary  of  the  ark  and  to 
the  priesthood  of  the  house  of  Aaron.  All  the  law  of  sacri- 
ficial observances  is  given  in  connection  with  this  sanctuary, 
and  on  the  usual  view  of  the  Pentateuch  was  already  put  into 


LECT.  IX  OF    SAMUEL  273 

force  before  the  Israelites  had  gained  a  fixed  habitation.  In 
the  days  of  Samuel  the  ark  and  the  legitimate  priesthood  still 
existed.  They  were  separated,  indeed, — the  one  at  Kirjath- 
jearim,  the  other  at  Nob.  But  they  might  easily  have  been 
reunited ;  for  the  distance  between  these  towns  is  only  a  fore- 
noon's walk.  Both  lay  in  that  part  of  the  land  which  was 
most  secure  from  Philistine  invasion,  and  formed  the  centre 
of  Saul's  authority.  For  the  Philistines  generally  attacked 
the  central  mountain  district  of  Canaan  from  Aphek  in  the 
northern  part  of  the  plain  of  Sharon.  The  roads  leading  from 
this  district  into  the  country  of  Joseph  are  much  easier  than 
the  routes  farther  south  that  lead  directly  to  the  land  of 
Benjamin ;  and  hence  Saul's  country  was  the  rallying  ground 
of  Hebrew  independence.  Yet  it  is  just  in  this  narrow  dis- 
trict, which  a  man  might  walk  across  in  a  day,  that  we  find 
a  scattered  worship,  and  no  attempt  to  concentrate  it  on  the 
part  of  Samuel  and  Saul.  There  was  no  plea  of  necessity  to 
excuse  this  if  Samuel  knew  the  Levitical  law.  Why  should 
he  go  from  town  to  town  making  sacrifice  in  local  high  places 
from  which  the  sanctuary  of  Nob  was  actually  visible  ?  The 
Law  does  not  require  such  tribute  at  the  hands  of  individuals. 
Except  at  the  great  pilgrimage  feasts  the  private  Israelite  is 
not  called  upon  to  bring  any  other  sacrifice  than  the  trespass 
or  sin  offering  when  he  has-  committed  some  offence.  But 
Samuel's  sacrifices  were  not  sin  offerings ;  they  were  mere 
peace  offerings,  the  material  of  sacrificial  feasts  which  under 
the  law  had  no  urgency  (1  Sam.  ix.  xvi.).  What  was  urgent 
on  the  Levitical  theory  was  to  re-establish  the  stated  burnt 
offering  and  the  due  atoning  ritual  before  the  ark  in  the 
hands  of  the  legitimate  priesthood  and  on  the  pattern  of  the 
service  in  the  wilderness.  But  in  place  of  doing  this  Samuel 
falls  in  with  the  local  worship  as  it  had  been  practised  by  the 
mass  of  the  people  while  Shiloh  still  stood.  He  deserts  the 
legal  ritual  for  a  service  which,  on  the  usual  theory,  was  mere 

i8 


274  WORSHIP  AND    RITUAL  lect.  ix 

will-worship.  The  truth  plainly  is  that  Samuel  did  not  know 
of  a  systematic  and  exclusive  system  of  sacrificial  ritual  con- 
fined to  the  sanctuary  of  the  ark.  He  did  not  know  a  model 
of  sacred  service  earlier  than  the  choice  of  Shiloh,  which  could 
serve  the  people  when  Shiloh  was  destroyed.  His  whole 
conduct  is  inexplicable  unless,  with  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  he 
did  not  recognise  the  Levitical  law  of  stated  sacrifice  as  part 
of  the  divine  ordinances  given  in  the  time  of  Moses  (Jer.  vii. 
22,  "  I  spake  not  with  your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in 
the  day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  con- 
cerning burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices").  Grant  with  Jeremiah 
that  sacrifice  is  a  free  expression  of  Israel's  homage,  which 
Jehovah  had  not  yet  regulated  by  law,  and  at  once  the 
conduct  of  Samuel  is  clear,  and  Jehovah's  acceptance  of  his 
service  intelligible. 

At  length,  in  the  reign  of  David,  the  old  elements  of  the 
central  worship  were  reunited.  The  ark  was  brought  up  from 
Kirjath-jearim  to  Jerusalem,  and  Abiathar,  the  representative 
of  the  house  of  Eli,  was  there  as  priest.  Israel  was  again  a 
united  people,  and  there  was  no  obstacle  to  the  complete 
restitution  of  the  Levitical  cultus,  had  it  been  recognised 
as  the  only  true  expression  of  Israel's  service.  But  still 
we  find  no  attempt  to  restore  the  one  sanctuary  and  the 
exclusive  privilege  of  the  one  priesthood.  According  to 
the  Law,  the  consecration  of  the  priesthood  is  not  of  man 
but  of  God,  and  Jehovah  alone  can  designate  the  priest 
who  shall  acceptably  approach  Him.  The  popular  religion 
has  another  view.  To  offer  sacrifice  is  the  privilege  of 
every  Israelite.  Saul  though  a  layman  had  done  so,  and 
if  his  sacrifice  at  Gilgal  was  a  sin,  the  offence  lay  not  in 
the  presumption  of  one  who  was  not  of  the  house  of  Aaron, 
but  in  the  impatience  which  had  moved  without  waiting 
for  the  promised  presence  of  the  prophet  (1  Sam.  xiii.  8 
sq. ;  comp.  xiv.  35).     The  priest,  therefore,  was  the  people's 


UNDER   DAVID  275 


delegate ;  his  consecration  was  from  them  not  from  Jehovah 
(Judges  xvii.  5,  12  ;  1  Sam.  vii.  1).  In  this  respect  David 
was  not  more  orthodox  than  Saul.  When  he  brought  up 
the  ark  to  Jerusalem  he  wore  the  priestly  ephod,  offered 
sacrifices  in  person,  and,  to  make  it  quite  clear  that  in 
all  this  he  assumed  a  priestly  function,  he  blessed  the 
people  as  a  priest  in  the  name  of  Jehovah  (2  Sam.  vi.  14, 
18).  Nor  were  these  irregularities  exceptional ;  in  2  Sam. 
viii.  18  we  read  that  David's  sons  were  priests.  This 
statement,  so  incredible  on  the  traditional  theory,  has  led 
our  English  version,  following  the  Jewish  tradition  of  the 
Targum,  to  change  the  sense,  and  substitute  "  chief  rulers  " 
for  priests.  But  the  Hebrew  word  means  priests,  and  can 
mean  nothing  else.  Equally  irregular  was  David's  relation 
to  the  high  places.  His  kingdom  was  first  fixed  at  the 
sanctuary  of  Hebron,  and  long  after  the  ark  was  brought 
up  to  Jerusalem  he  allowed  Absalom  to  visit  Hebron  in 
payment  of  a  sacrificial  vow  (2  Sam.  xv.  8,  12).  But  in 
fact  the  Book  of  Kings  expressly  recognises  the  worship 
of  the  high  places  as  legitimate  up  to  the  time  when  the 
Temple  was  built  (1  Kings  iii.  2  sq.).  The  author  or  final 
editor  of  the  history,  who  carries  the  narrative  down  to 
the  Captivity,  occupied  the  standpoint  of  Josiah's  refor- 
mation. He  knew  how  experience  had  shown  the  many 
high  places  to  be  a  constant  temptation  to  practical 
heathenism  ;  and  though  he  is  aware  that  de  facto  the 
best  kings  tolerated  the  local  shrines  for  centuries  after 
the  Temple  was  built,  he  holds  that  the  sanctuary  of  Zion 
ought  to  have  superseded  all  other  altars.  But  before  the 
Temple  the  high  places  were  in  his  judgment  legitimate. 
This  again  is  intelligible  enough  if  he  was  guided  by  the 
law  of  Deuteronomy,  and  understood  the  one  sanctuary  of 
Deuteronomy  to  be  none  other  than  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem. 
But  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  traditional  view  of  the 


276  THE    LAW    UNKNOWN  lect.  ix 

Levitical  legislation  as  a  system  completed  and  enforced 
from  the  days  of  the  wilderness  in  a  form  dependent  only 
on  the  existence  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  and  the  ark. 
And  so  we  actually  find  that  the  author  of  Chronicles, 
who  stands  on  the  basis  of  the  Levitical  legislation  and 
the  system  of  Ezra's  reformation,  refuses  to  accept  the 
simple  explanation  that  the  high  places  were  necessary 
before  the  Temple,  and  assumes  that  in  David's  time  the 
only  sanctuary  strictly  legitimate  was  Gibeon,  at  which 
he  supposes  the  tabernacle  and  the  brazen  altar  to  have 
stood  (1  Chron.  xvi.  39  sq.,  xxi.  29  sq. ;  2  Chron.  i.  3 
sq).  Of  all  this  the  author  of  Kings  knows  nothing. 
From  his  point  of  view  the  worship  of  the  high  places 
had  a  place  and  provisional  legitimacy  of  its  own  without 
reference  to  the  ark  or  the  brazen  altar. -^ 

The  result  of  this  survey  is  that,  through  the  whole 
period  from  the  Judges  to  Ezekiel,  the  Law  in  its  finished 
system  and  fundamental  theories  was  never  the  rule  of 
Israel's  worship,  and  its  observance  was  never  the  con- 
dition of  the  experience  of  Jehovah's  grace.  Although 
many  individual  points  of  ritual  resembled  the  ordinances 
of  the  Law,  the  Levitical  tradition  as  a  whole  had  as 
little  force  in  the  central  sanctuary  as  with  the  mass  of 
the  people.  The  contrast  between  true  and  false  worship 
is  not  the  contrast  between  the  Levitical  and  the  popular 
systems.  The  freedom  of  sacrifice  which  is  the  basis  of 
the  popular  worship  is  equally  the  basis  of  the  faith  of 
Samuel,  David,  and  Elijah.     The  reformers  of  Israel  strove 

^  Some  other  examples  of  irregularities  in  the  ritual  of  Israel  before  the 
Captivity  have  been  noticed  above,  p.  143  sq.,  in  the  discussion  of  the 
narrative  of  Chronicles  (morning  and  evening  sacrifice  ;  carrying  of  the  ark). 
To  these  one  more  may  be  added  here.  Under  the  Law  the  Levites  and 
priests  had  a  right  of  common  round  their  cities,  but  this  pasture  ground 
was  inalienable  (Lev.  xxv.  34),  so  that  1  Kings  ii.  26,  Jer.  xxxii.  7,  where 
priests  own  and  sell  fields,  are  irregular. 


LECT.  IX  IN  OLD    ISRAEL  277 

against  the  constant  lapses  of  the  nation  into  syncretism 
or  the  worship  of  foreign  gods,  but  they  did  not  do  so  on 
the  ground  of  the  Levitical  theory  of  Israel's  absolute 
separation  from  the  nations  or  of  a  unique  holiness  radi- 
ating from  the  one  sanctuary  and  descending  in  widening 
circles  through  priests  and  Levites  to  the  ordinary  Israelite. 
The  history  itself  does  not  accept  the  Levitical  standard. 
It  accords  legitimacy  to  the  popular  sanctuaries  before 
the  foundation  of  the  Temple,  and  represents  Jehovah  as 
accepting  the  offerings  made  at  them.  With  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Temple  the  historian  regards  the  local  worship 
as  superseded,  but  he  does  so  from  the  practical  point  of 
view  that  the  worship  there  was  in  later  times  of  heathenish 
character  (2  Kings  xvii.).  Nowhere  does  the  condemnation 
of  the  popular  religion  rest  on  the  original  consecration  of 
the  tabernacle,  the  brazen  altar,  and  the  Aaronic  priesthood, 
as  the  exclusive  channels  of  veritable  intercourse  between 
Jehovah  and  Israel. 

A  dim  consciousness  of  this  witness  of  history  is  pre- 
served in  the  fantastic  tradition  that  the  Law  was  lost,  and 
was  restored  by  Ezra.  In  truth  the  people  of  Jehovah  never 
lived  under  the  Law,  and  the  dispensation  of  Divine  grace 
never  followed  its  pattern,  till  Israel  had  ceased  to  be  a 
nation.  The  history  of  Israel  refuses  to  be  measured  by  the 
traditional  theory  as  to  the  origin  and  function  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. In  the  next  Lecture  we  must  inquire  whether  the 
prophets  confirm  or  modify  this  result. 


LECTUEE  X 

THE   PEOPHETS 

A  SPECIAL  object  of  the  finished  Pentateuchal  system,  as 
enforced  among  the  Jews  from  the  days  of  Ezra,  was  to  make 
the  people  of  Jehovah  visibly  different  from  the  surrounding 
nations.  The  principle  of  holiness  was  a  principle  of  separa- 
tion, and  the  ceremonial  ordinances  of  holiness,  whether  in 
daily  life  or  in  the  inner  circles  of  the  Temple  worship,  were 
so  many  visible  and  tangible  fences  set  up  to  divide  Israel, 
and  Israel's  religion,  from  the  surrounding  Gentiles  and  their 
religion.  Artificial  as  this  system  may  appear,  the  history 
proves  that  it  was  necessary.  The  small  community  of  the 
new  Jerusalem  was  under  constant  temptations  to  mingle 
with  the  "people  of  the  land."  Intermarriages,  such  as 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  suppressed  by  a  supreme  effort,  opened 
a  constant  door  to  heathen  ideas  and  heathen  morality. 
The  religion  of  Jehovah  could  not  be  preserved  intact  with- 
out isolating  the  people  of  Jehovah  from  their  neighbours, 
and  this  again  could  only  be  done  through  a  highly  developed 
system  of  national  customs  and  usages,  enlisting  in  the  service 
of  religious  purity  the  force  of  habit,  and  the  natural  con- 
servatism of  Eastern  peoples  in  all  matters  of  daily  routine. 
Long  before  the  time  of  Christ  the  ceremonial  observances 
had  so  grown  into  the  life  of  the  Jews  that  national  pride, 
inborn  prejudice,  a  disgust  at  foreign  habits  sucked  in  with 


LECT.  X  JUDAISM    AFTER    EZRA  279 

his  mother's  milk,  made  the  Israelite  a  peculiar  person, 
naturally  averse  to  contact  with  the  surrounding  Gentiles, 
and  quite  insensihle  to  the  temptations  which  had  drawn 
his  ancestors  into  continual  apostasy.  The  hatred  of  the 
human  race,  which,  to  foreign  observers,  seemed  the  national 
characteristic  of  the  Jews  under  the  Eoman  Empire,  was 
a  fault  precisely  opposite  to  the  facility  with  which  the 
Israelites,  before  the  Captivity,  had  mingled  with  the 
heathen  and  served  their  gods.  This  change  was  un- 
doubtedly due  to  the  discipline  of  the  Law,  the  strict 
pedagogue,  as  St.  Paul  represents  it,  charged  to  watch  the 
steps  of  the  child  not  yet  fit  for  liberty.  Without  the 
Law  the  Jews  would  have  been  absorbed  in  the  nations, 
just  as  the  Ten  Tribes  were  absorbed  and  disappeared  in 
their  captivity. 

But  we  have  seen  in  the  last  two  Lectures  that  this  lecjal 
discipline  of  ceremonial  holiness  was  not  enforced  in  Israel 
before  Josiah,  nor,  indeed,  in  all  its  fulness,  at  any  time 
before  Ezra.  The  ordinary  life  of  Israel  was  not  guarded 
against  admixture  with  the  nations.  David  married  the 
Princess  Maacah  of  Geshur ;  Solomon  took  many  strange 
wives ;  Jehoram,  in  his  good  father's  lifetime,  wedded  the 
half-heathen  Athaliah ;  and  people  of  lower  estate  were  not 
more  concerned  to  keep  themselves  apart  from  the  Gentiles. 
Great  sections  of  the  nation  were  indeed  of  mixed  blood. 
The  population  of  Southern  Judah  was  of  half- Arab  origin, 
and  several  of  the  clans  in  this  district  bear  names  which 
indicate  their  original  affinity  with  Midian  or  Edom ;  ^  while 

1  See  Wellhausen,  De  Gentibus  et  Familiis  JudcBorum  (Gottingen,  1870). 
The  Jerahmeelites  and  Calibbites  of  the  Judaean  Negeb  (the  southern  steppes ; 
A.  V.  "  the  south  ")  were  not  fuUj^  identified  with  Judah  proper  in  the  time 
of  David  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  10,  xxx.  14) ;  see  also  Josh.  xv.  13,  where  Caleb 
receives  a  lot  "among  the  children  of  Judah."  Caleb,  therefore,  the  eponym 
of  the  Calibbites,  was  not  a  Judoean  by  blood  ;  he  was,  in  fact,  a  Kenizzite 
(Josh.  xiv.  6).  Now  the  Kenizzites  (or  Keuaz)  are  one  of  the  clans  of  Edoin 
(Gen.  xxxvi.  15,  42). 


280  ISRAEL  THE  PEOPLE  lect.  x 

we  know  that  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  and  later,  many 
cities,  like  Shechem,  had  still  a  Canaanite  population  which 
was  not  exterminated,  and  must  therefore  have  been  gradually 
absorbed  among  the  Israelites.  This  free  intermixture  of 
races  shows  an  entire  absence  of  the  spirit  of  religious  ex- 
clusiveness  which  was  fostered  in  later  Judaism  under  the 
discipline  of  the  Law.  And  it  could  hardly  have  taken  place 
if  there  had  been  a  wide  difference  between  the  social  ordin- 
ances of  the  Hebrews  and  their  neiejhbours.  But  in  fact  we 
find  in  old  Israel  traces  of  various  social  customs  inconsistent 
with  the  Pentateuchal  law,  and  precisely  identical  with  the 
usages  of  the  heathen  Semites.  Marriage  with  a  half-sister, 
a  known  practice  of  the  Phoenicians  and  other  Semites,  had 
the  precedent  of  Abraham  in  its  favour,  was  not  thought 
inadmissible  in  the  time  of  David  (2  Sam.  xiii.  13),  and  was 
still  a  current  practice  in  the  days  of  Ezekiel  (xxii.  11).  I 
choose  this  instance  as  peculiarly  striking,  but  it  is  not  an 
isolated  case.  Another  example,  not  less  remarkable,  will 
come  before  us  in  Lecture  XII.  (infra,  p.  369).-^  In  short, 
neither  the  religious  nor  the  social  system  of  the  nation  was 
as  yet  consolidated  on  distinctive  principles.  I  am  now 
speaking  of  practice,  not  of  theory,  and  I  apprehend  that 
even  those  who  maintain  that  the  whole  Pentateuch  was 
then  extant  as  a  theoretical  system  must  admit  that  before 
the  Exile  the  pedagogic  ordinances  of  that  system  were  not 
the  practical  instrument  by  which  the  distinctive  relation  of 
Israel  to  Jehovah  was  preserved,  and  the  people  hindered 
from  sinking  altogether  into  Canaanite  heathenism. 

It  was  through  an  instrumentality  of  a  very  different  kind 
that  Israel,  with  all  its  backslidings,  was  prevented  from 
wholly  forgetting  its  vocation  as  the  people  of  Jehovah,  that 
a  spark  of  higher  faith  was  kept  alive  in  all  times  of  national 

^  For  the  subject  here  touched  on  see  in  general  an  essay  on  Animal- 
worship,  etc.,  in  the  Journal  of  Philology,  ix.  75  sq.,  and  especially  my 
Kinship  and  Marriage  in  Early  Arabia  (Cambridge,  1885). 


LECT.  X  OF    JEHOVAH  281 

declension,  and  the  basis  laid  for  that  final  work  of  reforma- 
tion which  at  length  made  Israel  the  people  of  the  Law  not 
only  in  name  but  in  reality.  That  instrumentality  was  the 
word  of  the  prophets. 

The  conception  that  in  Jehovah  Israel  has  a  national  God 
and  Father,  with  a  special  claim  on  its  worship,  is  not  in 
itself  a  thing  peculiar  to  revealed  religion.  Other  Semitic 
tribes  had  their  tribal  gods.  Moab  is  the  people  of  Chemosh, 
and  the  members  of  the  nation  are  called  sons  and  daughters 
of  the  national  deity  even  in  the  Israelite  lay,  Numbers  xxi. 
29  (compare  Malachi  ii.  11).  All  religion  was  tribal  or 
nationah  "  Thy  people,"  says  Euth,  "  shall  be  my  people,  and 
thy  God  my  God"  (Euth  i.  16).  "Hath  any  nation  changed 
its  god?"  asks  Jeremiah  (ii.  11).  Jehovah  Himself,  accord- 
ing to  Deut.  iv.  19,  has  appointed  the  heavenly  host  and  other 
false  deities  to  the  heathen  nations,  while  conversely  He  is 
Himself  the  "  portion  of  Jacob  "  (Jer.  x.  16  ;  comp.  Deut.  xxix. 
26).  In  the  early  times,  to  be  an  Israelite  and  to  be  a 
worshipper  of  Jehovah  is  the  same  thing.  To  be  banished 
from  the  land  of  Israel,  the  inheritance  of  Jehovah,  is  to  be 
driven  to  serve  other  gods  (1  Sam.  xxvi.  19). 

These  are  ideas  common  to  all  Semitic  religions.  But  in 
Semitic  heathenism  the  relation  between  a  nation  and  its  god 
is  natural.  It  does  not  rest  on  choice  either  on  the  nation's 
part  or  on  the  part  of  the  deity.  The  god,  it  would  appear, 
was  frequently  thought  of  as  the  physical  progenitor  or  first 
father  of  his  people.  At  any  rate,  the  god  and  the  worship- 
pers formed  a  natural  unity,  which  was  also  bound  up  with 
the  land  they  occupied.  It  was  deemed  necessary  for  settlers 
in  a  country  to  "  know  the  manner  of  the  god  of  the  land  " 
(2  Kings  xvii.  26).  The  dissolution  of  the  nation  destroys 
the  national  religion,  and  dethrones  the  national  deity.  The 
god  can  no  more  exist  without  his  people  than  the  nation 
without  its  god. 


282  RELIGTOX    OF  lect.  x 

The  mass  of  the  Israelites  hardly  seem  to  have  risen  above 
this  conception.  The  Pentateuch  knows  the  nation  well 
enough  to  take  it  for  granted  that  in  their  banishment  from 
"  the  land  of  Jehovah,"  where  He  can  no  longer  be  approached 
in  the  sanctuaries  of  the  popular  worship,  they  will  serve 
other  gods,  wood  and  stone  (Deut.  xxviii.  36  ;  comp.  Hosea 
ix.).  Nay,  it  is  plain  that  a  great  part  of  Israel  imagined,  like 
their  heathen  neio'hbours,  that  Jehovah  had  need  of  them  as 
much  as  they  had  need  of  Him,  that  their  worship  and  service 
could  not  be  indifferent  to  Him,  that  He  must,  by  a  natural 
necessity,  exert  His  power  against  their  enemies  and  save  His 
sanctuaries  from  profanation.  This  indeed  was  the  constant 
contention  of  the  prophets  who  opposed  Micah  and  Jeremiah 
(Micah  iii.  11 ;  Jer.  vii.  4  sq.,  xxvii.  1  sq.) ;  and  from  their 
point  of  view  the  captivity  of  Judah  was  the  final  and  hope- 
less collapse  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah.  The  religion  of  the 
true  prophets  was  very  different.  They  saw  Jehovah's  hand 
even  in  the  fall  of  the  state.  The  Assyrian  and  the  Baby- 
lonian were  His  servants  (Isa.  x.  5  sq. ;  Jer.  xxvii.  6),  and  the 
catastrophe  which  overwhelmed  the  land  of  Israel,  and  proved 
that  the  popular  religion  was  a  lie,  was  to  the  spiritual  faith 
the  clearest  proof  that  Jehovah  is  not  only  Israel's  God,  but 
the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth.  As  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  our  Saviour  are  the  supreme  proof  of  the  spiritual  truths  of 
Christianity,  so  the  death  of  the  old  Hebrew  state  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah,  in  a  form  independent 
of  the  old  national  life,  is  the  supreme  proof  that  the  religion 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  no  mere  natural  variety  of  Semitic 
monolatry,  but  a  dispensation  of  the  true  and  eternal  religion 
of  the  spiritual  God.  The  prophets  who  foresaw  the  cata- 
strophe without  alarm  and  without  loss  of  faith  stood  on  a 
foundation  diverse  from  that  of  natural  religion.  They  were 
the  organs  of  a  spiritual  revelation,  who  had  stood,  as  they 
themselves  say,  in  the  secret  council  of  Jehovah  (Amos  iii. 


LECT.  X  THE   PROPHETS  283 

7 ;  Jer.  xxiii.  18,  22),  and  knew  the  law  of  His  working,  and 
the  goal  to  which  He  was  guiding  His  people.  It  was  not  the 
law  of  ordinances,  but  the  living  prophetic  word  in  the  midst 
of  Israel,  that  separated  the  religion  of  Jehovah  from  the 
religion  of  Baal  or  Chemosh,  and  gave  it  that  vitality  which 
survived  the  overthrow  of  the  ancient  state  and  the  banish- 
ment of  Jehovah's  people  from  His  land. 

The  characteristic  mark  of  a  true  prophet  is  that  he  has 
stood  in  the  secret  council  of  Jehovah,  and  speaks  the  words 
which  he  has  heard  from  His  mouth.  "  The  Lord  Jehovah," 
says  Amos,  "  will  not  do  anything  without  revealing  his  secret 
to  his  servants  the  prophets.  The  lion  hath  roared,  who  will 
not  fear?  The  Lord  Jehovah  hath  spoken,  who  can  but 
prophesy  ? "  But  the  prophets  do  not  claim  universal  fore- 
knowledge. The  secret  of  Jehovah  is  the  secret  of  His 
relations  to  Israel.  "  The  secret  of  Jehovah  belongs  to  them 
that  fear  him,  and  he  will  make  them  know  his  covenant" 
(Psalm  XXV.  14).  "  If  they  have  stood  in  my  secret  council, 
let  them  proclaim  my  words  to  my  people,  that  they  may 
return  from  their  evil  way  "  (Jer.  xxiii.  22).  The  word  secret 
or  privy  council  {sod)  is  that  used  of  a  man's  intimate 
personal  circle.  The  prophets  stand  in  this  circle.  They  are 
in  sympathy  with  Jehovah's  heart  and  will,  their  knowledge 
of  His  counsel  is  no  mere  intellectual  gift  but  a  moral  thing. 
They  are  not  diviners  but  intimates  of  Jehovah.  Balaam,  in 
spite  of  his  predictions,  is  not  in  the  Old  Testament  called  a 
prophet.     He  is  only  a  soothsayer  (Josh.  xiii.  22). 

Why  has  Jehovah  a  circle  of  intimates  within  Israel, 
confidants  of  His  moral  purpose  and  acquainted  with  what 
He  is  about  to  do  ?  The  prophets  themselves  supply  a  clear 
answer  to  this  question.  There  are  personal  relations  between 
Jehovah  and  His  people,  analogous  to  those  of  human  friend- 
ship and  love.  "  When  Israel  was  a  child  I  loved  him,  and 
called  my  son  out  of  Egypt.  ...  I  taught  Ephraim  to  go, 


284  PROPHETIC    AND    HEATHEN  lect.  x 

holding  them  by  their  arms.  ...  I  drew  them  with  human 
bands,  with  cords  of  love  "  (Hosea  xi.  1).  "  You  alone  have 
I  known,"  says  Jehovah  through  Amos,  "  of  all  the  families 
of  the  earth  "  (Amos  iii.  2).  This  relation  between  Jehovah 
and  Israel  is  not  a  mere  natural  unintelligent  and  physically 
indissoluble  bond  such  as  unites  Moab  to  Chemosh.  It  rests 
on  free  love  and  gracious  choice.  As  Ezekiel  xvi.  6  puts  it, 
Jehovah  saw  and  pitied  Jerusalem,  when  she  lay  as  an  infant 
cast  forth  to  die,  and  said  unto  her,  Live.  The  relation  is 
moral  and  personal,  and  receives  moral  and  personal  expres- 
sion. Jehovah  guides  His  people  by  His  word,  and  admits 
them  to  the  knowledge  of  His  ways.  But  He  does  not  speak 
directly  to  every  Israelite  (Deut.  xviii.  15  sq.).  The  organs  of 
His  loving  and  personal  intercourse  with  the  people  of  His 
choice  are  the  prophets.  "  By  a  prophet  Jehovah  brought 
Israel  out  of  Egypt,  and  by  a  prophet  he  was  preserved" 
(Hosea  xii.  13).  "  I  brought  you  up  from  the  land  of  Egypt, 
and  led  you  in  the  wilderness  forty  years  to  possess  the  land 
of  the  Amorites.  And  I  raised  up  of  your  sons  for  prophets, 
and  of  your  young  men  for  N'azarites  "  (Amos  ii.  10,  11).  The 
prophets,  you  perceive,  regard  their  function  as  an  essential 
element  in  the  national  religion.  It  is  they  who  keep  alive 
the  constant  intercourse  of  love  between  Jehovah  and  His 
people  which  distinguishes  the  house  of  Jacob  from  all  other 
nations  ;  it  is  their  work  which  makes  Israel's  religion  a 
moral  and  spiritual  religion. 

To  understand  this  point  we  must  remember  that  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  distinctive  features  of  the  religion  of 
Jehovah  are  habitually  represented  in  contrast  to  the  religion 
of  the  heathen  nations.  It  is  taken  for  granted  that  the 
religion  of  the  nations  does  in  a  certain  sense  address  itself  to 
man's  legitimate  needs.  The  religion  of  Israel  would  not  be 
the  all-sufficient  thing  it  is,  if  Israel  did  not  find  in  Jehovah 
the  true  supply  of  those  wants  for  which  other  nations  turn 


LECT.  X  RELIGION    CONTRASTED  285 

to  the  delusive  help  of  the  gods  who  are  no  gods.     Now,  in 
all  ancient  religions,  and  not  least  in  Semitic  heathenism,  it 
is  a  main  object  of  the  worshipper  to  obtain  oracles  from  his 
god.     The  uncertainties  of  human  life  are  largely  due  to  man's 
ignorance.     His  life  is  environed  by  forces  which  he  cannot 
understand  or  control,  and  which  seem  to  sport  at  will  with 
his  existence  and  his  happiness.     All  these  forces  are  viewed 
as  supernatural,  or  rather — for  in  these  questions  it  is  im- 
portant to  eschew  metaphysical  notions  not  known  to  early 
thinkers — they  are  divine  beings,  with  whom  man  can  enter 
into  league  only  by  means  of  his  religion.     They  are  to  be 
propitiated  by  offerings,  and  consulted  by  enchantments  and 
soothsayers.     In  Semitic  heathenism  the  deity  whom  a  tribe 
worships   as   its    king    or   lord    (Baal)    is    often   identified 
with  some  supreme  power  of  nature,  with  the  mighty  sun, 
the  lord  of  the  seasons,  or  with  the  heavens  that  send  down 
rain,  or  with  some  great  planet  whose  stately  march  through 
the  skies  appears  to  regulate  the  cycles  of  time.     These  are 
the  higher  forms  of  ethnic  religion.     In  lower  types  the  deity 
is  more  immediately  identified  with  earthly  objects, — animals, 
trees,  or  the  like.     But  in  any  case  the  god  is  a  member  of 
the  chain  of  hidden  natural  agencies  on  which  man  is  con- 
tinually dependent,  and  with  which  it  is  essential  to  establish 
friendly  relations.     Such  relations  are  attainable,  for  man 
himself  is   physically  connected  with  the  natural   powers. 
They  produced  him  ;  he  is  the  son  of  his  god  as  well  as  his 
servant ;  and  so  the  divinity,  if  rightly  questioned  and  care- 
fully propitiated,  will  speak  to  the  worshipper  and  aid  him 
by  his  counsel  as  weU  as  his  strength.     In  all  this  there  is, 
properly  speaking,  no  moral  element.     The  divine  forces  of 
nature  seem  to  be  personified,  for  they  hear  and  speak.     But, 
strictly  speaking,  the  theory  of  such  religion  is  the  negation 
of  personality.     It  is  on  the  physical  side  of  his  being  tliat 
man  has  relations  to  the  f]fodhead.     Pteaders  of  Plato  will 


286  DIVINATIOX   AND  lect.  x 

remember  liow  clearly  this  comes  out  in  the  Timccus,  where 
the  faculty  of  divination  is  connected  with  the  aj^petitive  and 
irrational  part  of  man's  nature.-^  That,  of  course,  is  a  philo- 
sophical explanation  of  popular  notions.  But  it  indicates  a 
characteristic  feature  in  the  religion  of  heathenism.  It  is  not 
as  an  intellectual  and  moral  being  that  man  has  fellowship 
with  deities  that  are  themselves  identified  with  physical 
powers.  The  divine  element  in  man  through  which  he  has 
access  to  his  god  lies  in  the  mysterious  instincts  of  his  lower 
nature ;  and  paroxysms  of  artificially-produced  frenzy,  dreams, 
and  diseased  visions  are  the  accepted  means  of  intercourse 
with  the  godhead. 

Accordingly  an  essential  element  in  the  religion  of  the 
heathen  Semites  was  divination  in  its  various  forms,  of  which 
so  many  are  enumerated  in  Deut.  xviii.  10,  11.^  The  diviner 
procured  an  oracle,  predicting  future  events,  detecting  secrets, 
and  directing  the  worshipper  what  choice  to  make  in  difi&cult 
points  of  conduct.  Such  oracles  were  often  sought  in  private 
life,  but  they  were  deemed  altogether  indispensable  in  the 
conduct  of  the  state,  and  the  soothsayers  w^ere  a  necessary 
part  of  the  political  establishment  of  every  nation.  The  Old 
Testament  takes  it  for  granted  that  Jehovah  acknowledges 

^  Plato,  Timccus,  cap.  xxxii.  p.  71,  D.  The  man  tic  faculty  belongs  to  tlie 
part  of  the  soul  settled  in  the  liver,  because  that  part  has  no  share  in  reason 
and  thought.  ' '  For  inspired  and  true  divination  is  not  attained  to  by  any 
one  when  in  his  full  senses,  but  only  when  the  power  of  thought  is  fettered  by 
sleep  or  disease  or  some  paroxysm  of  frenzy." 

This  view  of  inspiration  is  diametrically  opposite  to  that  of  St.  Paul 
(1  Cor.  xiv.  32),  and  the  complete  self-consciousness  and  self-control  of  the 
prophets  taught  in  that  passage  belong  equally  to  the  spiritual  prophecy  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Plato's  theory,  however,  was  applied  to  the  prophets  by 
Philo,  the  Jewish  Platonist,  who  describes  the  prophetic  state  as  an  ecstasy 
in  which  the  human  vovs  disappears  to  make  way  for  the  divine  Spirit  {Qicis 
rcrum  div.  heres,  §  53,  ed.  Richter,  iii.  58  ;  Be  Spec.  Leg.  §  8,  Richter,  v. 
122).  Something  similar  has  been  taught  in  recent  times  by  Hengstenberg 
and  others, — substituting,  as  we  observe,  the  pagan  for  the  Biblical  conception 
of  revelation. 

-  On  the  various  forms  of  divination  and  magic  enumerated  in  these  verses, 
see  two  papers  in  the  Journal  of  Philology,  xiii.  273  sqq.,  and  xiv.  113  sqq. 


PROPHECY  28' 


and  supplies  in  Israel  the  want  which  in  other  nations  is  met 
by  the  practice  of  divination.  The  place  of  the  soothsayer  is 
supplied  by  the  prophets  of  Jehovah.  "  These  nations,  which 
thou  shalt  dispossess,  hearken  unto  soothsayers  and  diviners  ; 
but  as  for  thee,  Jehovah  thy  God  suffereth  thee  not  to  do  so. 
A  prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like  unto 
me,  will  Jehovah  thy  God  raise  up  unto  thee;  unto  him 
shall  ye  hearken  "  (Deut.  xviii.  14  sq.). 

In  the  popular  religion,  where  the  attributes  of  Jehovah 
were  not  clearly  marked  off  from  those  of  the  heathen  Baalim, 
little  distinction  was  made  between  prophet  and  soothsayer. 
The  word  prophet,  nadt\  is  not  exclusively  Hebrew.  It 
appears  to  be  identical  with  the  Assyrian  Nebo,  the  spokes- 
man of  the  gods,  answering  to  the  Greek  Hermes.  And  we 
know  that  there  were  prophets  of  Baal,  whose  orgies  are 
described  in  1  Kings  xviii.,  where  we  learn  that  they  sought 
access  to  their  god  in  exercises  of  artificial  frenzy  carried  so 
far  that,  like  modern  fanatics  of  the  East,  they  became  in- 
sensible to  pain,  and  passed  into  a  sort  of  temporary  madness, 
to  which  a  supernatural  character  was  no  doubt  ascribed,  as 
is  still  the  case  in  similar  religions.  This  Canaanite  pro- 
phetism,  then,  was  a  kind  of  divination,  based,  like  all 
divination,  on  the  notion  that  the  irrational  part  of  man's 
nature  is  that  which  connects  him  with  the  deity.  It 
appears  that  there  were  men  in  Israel  calling  themselves 
seers  or  prophets  of  Jehovah,  who  occupied  no  higher  stand- 
point. Saul  and  his  servant  went  to  Samuel  with  the  fourth 
part  of  a  shekel  as  fee  to  ask  him  a  question  about  lost  asses, 
and  the  story  is  told  as  if  this  were  part  of  the  business  of  a 
common  seer.  In  the  time  of  Isaiah,  the  stay  and  staff  of 
Jerusalem,  the  necessary  props  of  the  state,  included  not  only 
judges  and  warriors  but  prophets,  diviners,  men  skilled  in 
charms,  and  such  as  understood  enchantments  (Isa.  iii.  2,  3, 
Heb.).     Similarly  Micah  iii.  5  sq.  identifies  the  prophets  and 


288  PROFESSIONAL    PROPHETS  lect.  x 

the  diviners,  and  places  them  alongside  of  tlie  judges  and  the 
priests  as  leaders  of  the  nation.  "  The  heads  thereof  give 
judgment  for  bribes,  and  the  priests  give  legal  decisions  for 
hire,  and  the  prophets  divine  for  money ;  yet  they  lean  npon 
Jehovah  and  say.  Is  not  Jehovah  among  us  ?  none  evil  can 
come  upon  us."  You  observe  that  this  false  prophecy,  which 
is  nothing  else  than  divination,  is  practised  in  the  name  of 
Jehovah,  and  has  a  recognised  place  in  the  state.  And  so, 
when  Amos  appeared  at  Bethel  to  speak  in  Jehovah's  name, 
the  priest  Amaziah  identified  him  with  the  professional 
prophets  who  were  fed  by  their  trade  (Amos  vii.  12),  and 
formed  a  sort  of  guild,  as  the  name  "  sons  of  the  prophets  " 
indicates. 

With  these  prophets  by  trade  Amos  indignantly  refuses 
to  be  identified.  "  I  am  no  prophet,"  he  cries,  "  nor  the 
member  of  a  prophetic  guild,  but  an  herdsman,  and  a  plucker 
of  sycomore  fruit.  And  Jehovah  took  me  as  I  followed  the 
flock,  and  said  unto  me,  Go,  prophesy  unto  my  people  Israel." 
These  words  of  the  earliest  prophetic  book  clearly  express 
the  standpoint  of  spiritual  prophecy.  With  the  established 
guilds,  the  official  prophets,  if  I  may  so  call  them,  the  men 
skilled  in  enchantment  and  divination,  whose  business  was  a 
trade  involving  magical  processes  that  could  be  taught  and 
learned,  Amos,  Isaiah,  and  Micah  have  nothing  in  common ; 
they  declaim  against  the  accepted  prophecy  of  their  time,  as 
they  do  against  all  other  parts  of  the  national  religion  which 
were  no  longer  discriminated  from  heathenism.  They  accept 
the  principle  that  prophecy  is  essential  to  religion.  They 
admit  that  Jehovah's  guidance  of  His  people  must  take 
the  form  of  continual  revelation,  supplying  those  needs  which 
drive  heathen  nations  and  the  unspiritual  masses  of  Israel  to 
practise  divination.  But  the  method  of  true  revelation  has 
nothing  in  common  with  the  art  of  the  diviner.  "  When  they 
say  unto  you,  Seek  counsel  of  ghosts  and  of  familiar  spirits 


LECT.  X  AND    TRUE    PROPHETS  289 

that  peep  and  mutter :  should  not  a  people  consult  its  God  ? 
shall  they  go  to  the  dead  on  behalf  of  the  living  ? "  (Isa.  viii. 
19).  The  wizards,  by  their  ventriloquist  arts,  professed  to 
make  their  dupes  hear  the  voice  of  ghosts  and  gibbering 
spirits  rising  from  the  underground  abodes  of  the  dead  (see 
Isa.  xxix.  4 ;  1  Sam.  xxviii.) ;  but  Jehovah  is  a  living  God,  a 
moral  and  personal  being.  He  speaks  to  His  prophets,  not 
in  magical  processes  or  through  the  visions  of  poor  phrenetics, 
but  by  a  clear  intelligible  word  addressed  to  the  intellect  and 
the  heart.  The  characteristic  of  the  true  prophet  is  that  he 
retains  his  consciousness  and  self-control  under  revelation. 
He  is  filled  with  might  by  the  spirit  of  Jehovah  (Micah  iii.  8). 
Jehovah  speaks  to  him  as  if  He  grasped  him  with  a  strong 
hand  (Isa.  viii.  11).  The  word  is  within  his  heart  like  a 
burning  fire  shut  up  in  his  bones  (Jer.  xx.  9),  so  that  he 
cannot  remain  silent.  But  it  is  an  intelligible  word,  which 
speaks  to  the  prophet's  own  heart  and  conscience,  forbidding 
Isaiah  to  walk  in  the  way  of  the  corrupt  nation,  filling 
Micah  with  power  to  declare  unto  Jacob  his  transgression, 
supporting  the  heart  of  Jeremiah  with  an  inward  joy  amidst 
all  his  trials  (Jer.  xv.  16).  The  first  condition  of  such  pro- 
phecy are  pure  lips  and  a  heart  right  with  God.  Isaiah's 
lips  are  purged  and  his  sin  forgiven  before  he  can  go  as 
Jehovah's  messenger  (Isa.  vi.) ;  and  to  Jeremiah  the  Lord 
says,  "  If  thou  return,  then  will  I  bring  thee  back,  and  thou 
shalt  stand  before  me  :  and  if  thou  take  forth  the  precious 
from  the  vile,  thou  shalt  be  as  my  mouth :  let  them — the 
sinful  people — turn  to  thee,  but  turn  not  thou  to  them  "  (Jer. 
XV.  19).  Thus  the  essence  of  true  prophecy  lies  in  moral 
converse  \vith  Jehovah.  It  is  in  this  moral  converse  that 
the  prophet  learns  the  divine  will,  enters  into  the  secrets  of 
Jehovah's  purpose,  and  so  by  declaring  God's  word  to  Israel 
keeps  alive  a  constant  spiritual  intercourse  between  Him  and 
His  people. 

19 


290  PROPHETIC  IDEAL 


According  to  the  prophets  this  spiritual  intercourse  is  the 
essence  of  religion,  and  the  "  word  of  Jehovah,"  in  the  sense 
now  explained,  is  the  characteristic  and  distinguishing  mark 
of  His  grace  to  Israel.  When  the  word  of  Jehovah  is  with- 
drawn, the  nation  is  hopelessly  undone.  Amos  describes  as 
the  climax  of  judgment  on  the  Northern  Kingdom  a  famine 
not  of  bread  but  of  hearing  Jehovah's  word.  Men  shall  run 
from  end  to  end  of  the  land  to  seek  the  word  of  Jehovah,  and 
shall  not  find  it.  In  that  day  the  fair  virgins  and  the  young 
men  shall  faint  for  thirst,  and  the  guilty  people  shall  fall  to 
rise  no  more  (Amos  viii.  11  sq.).  Conversely  the  hope  of 
Judah  in  its  adversity  is  that  "thine  eyes  shall  see  thy 
teacher,  and  thine  ears  shall  hear  a  word  behind  thee  saying. 
This  is  the  way,  walk  ye  in  it,  when  ye  turn  to  the  right 
hand  or  the  left "  (Isa.  xxx.  20).  And  so  the  function  of  the 
prophet  cannot  cease  till  the  days  of  the  new  covenant,  when 
Jehovah  shall  write  His  revelation  in  the  hearts  of  all  His 
people,  when  one  man  "  shall  no  more  teach  another  saying. 
Know  Jehovah  :  for  they  shall  all  know  me  from  the  least  of 
them  unto  the  greatest  of  them,  saith  Jehovah  :  for  I  will 
forgive  their  iniquity,  and  remember  their  sin  no  more  "  (Jer. 
xxxi.  33  sq.).  When  we  compare  this  passage  with  Isaiah 
vi.,  we  see  that  under  this  new  covenant  the  prophetic  conse- 
cration is  extended  to  all  Israel,  and  the  function  of  the 
teacher  ceases,  because  all  Israel  shall  then  stand  in  the 
circle  of  Jehovah's  intimates,  and  see  the  king  in  His  beauty 
as  Isaiah  saw  Him  in  prophetic  vision  (Isa.  xxxiii.  17).  The 
same  thought  appears  in  another  form  in  Joel  ii.  28,  where  it 
is  represented  as  a  feature  in  the  deliverance  of  Israel  that 
God's  spirit  shall  be  poured  on  all  flesh,  and  young  and  old, 
freemen  and  slaves,  shall  prophesy.  But  nowhere  is  the  idea 
more  clear  than  in  the  last  part  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  where 
the  true  people  of  Jehovah  and  the  prophet  of  Jehovah  appear 
as  identical.     "  Hearken  unto  me,  ye  that  know  the  right,  the 


OF  RELIGION  291 


people  in  ivliosc  hearts  my  revelation  dtvells;  fear  ye  not  the 
reproach  of  man,  neither  be  ye  afraid  of  their  revilings.  .  .  . 
I  have  put  my  words  in  thy  mouth,  and  I  have  covered  tliee  in 
the  shadow  of  my  hand,  planting  the  heavens  and  laying  the 
foundation  of  the  earth,  and  saying  to  Zion,  Thou  art  my 
people"  (Isa.  li.  7,  16). 

We  see,  then,  that  the  ideal  of  the  Old  Testament  is  a 
dispensation  in  which  all  are  prophets.  "Would  that  all 
the  people  of  Jehovah  were  prophets,"  says  Moses  in  Num. 
xi.  29,  "  and  that  Jehovah  would  put  his  spirit  upon  them." 
If  prophecy  were  merely  an  institution  for  the  prediction  of 
future  events,  this  wish  would  be  futile.  But  the  essential 
grace  of  the  prophet  is  a  heart  purged  of  sin,  and  entering 
with  boldness  into  the  inner  circle  of  fellowship  with  Jehovah. 
The  spirit  of  Jehovah,  which  rests  on  the  prophet,  is  not 
merely  a  spirit  of  wisdom  and  understanding,  a  spirit  of 
counsel  and  might,  but  a  spirit  to  know  and  fear  the  Lord 
(Isa.  xi.  2).  The  knowledge  and  fear  of  Jehovah  is  the  sum 
of  all  prophetic  wisdom,  but  also  of  all  religion ;  and  the  Old 
Testament  spirit  of  prophecy  is  the  forerunner  of  the  New 
Testament  spirit  of  sanctifi  cation.  That  this  spirit,  in  the 
Old  Covenant,  rests  only  upon  chosen  organs  of  revelation, 
and  not  upon  all  the  faithful,  corresponds  to  the  limitations 
of  the  dispensation,  in  which  the  primary  subject  of  religion 
is  not  the  individual  but  the  nation,  so  that  Israel's  personal 
converse  with  Jehovah  can  be  adequately  maintained,  like 
other  national  functions,  through  the  medium  of  certain 
chosen  and  representative  persons.  The  prophet  is  thus  a 
mediator,  wlio  not  only  brings  God's  word  to  the  people  but 
conversely  makes  intercession  for  the  people  with  God  (Isa. 
xxxvii.  4;  Jer.  xiv.  11,  xv.  1,  etc.). 

The  account  of  prophecy  given  by  the  prophets  themselves 
involves,  you  perceive,  a  whole  theory  of  religion,  pointing  in 
the  most  necessary  way  to  a  New  Testament  fulfilment.     But 


292  THE    PROPHETS  lect.  x 

the  theory  moves  in  an  altogether  different  plane  from  the 
Levitical  ordinances,  and  in  no  sense  can  it  be  viewed  as  a 
spiritual  commentary  on  them.  For  under  the  Levitical 
system  Jehovah's  grace  is  conveyed  to  Israel  through  the 
priest ;  according  to  the  prophets  it  comes  in  the  prophetic 
word.  The  systems  are  not  identical ;  but  may  they  at  least 
be  regarded  as  mutually  supplementary  ? 

In  their  origin  priest  and  prophet  are  doubtless  closely 
connected  ideas.  Moses  is  not  only  a  prophet  but  a  priest 
(Deut.  xviii.  15  ;  Hos.  xii.  13  ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  8 ;  Psalm  xcix. 
6).  Samuel  also  unites  both  functions ;  and  there  is  a  priestly 
as  well  as  a  prophetic  oracle.  In  early  times  the  sacred  lot 
of  the  priest  appears  to  have  been  more  looked  to  than  the 
prophetic  word.  David  ceases  to  consult  Gad  when  Abiathar 
joins  him  with  the  ephod.  (Comp.  1  Sam.  xiv.  18,  xxii.  10, 
xxiii.  9,  XXV iii.  6  with  xxii.  5.)  Indeed,  so  long  as  sacrificial 
acts  w^ere  freely  performed  by  laymen,  the  chief  distinction  of 
a  priest  doubtless  lay  in  his  qualification  to  give  an  oracle. 
The  word  which  in  Hebrew  means  priest  is  in  old  Arabic  the 
term  for  a  soothsayer  {kohen,  kdhin),  and  in  this,  as  in  other 
points,  the  popular  religion  of  Israel  was  closely  modelled  on 
the  forms  of  Semitic  heathenism,  as  we  see  from  the  oracle  in 
the  shrine  of  Micah  (Judges  xviii.  5.  Comp.  1  Sam.  vi.  2  ;  2 
Kings  X.  19).-^     The  official  prophets  of  Judah  appear  to  have 

1  In  ancient  times  the  priestly  oracle  of  Urim  and  Thummim  was  a  sacred 
lot ;  for  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  41  the  true  text,  as  we  can  still  restore  it  from  the 
LXX.,  makes  Saul  pray,  "  If  the  iniquity  be  in  me  or  Jonathan,  give  Urim  ; 
but  if  in  Israel,  give  Thummim."  This  sacred  lot  was  connected  with  the 
ephod,  which  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  was  something  very  like  an  idol 
{supra,  p.  241).  Spencer  therefore  seems  to  be  right  in  assuming  a  re- 
semblance in  point  of  form  between  the  2)riestly  lot  of  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
and  divination  by  Teraphim  {De  Leg.  Hit.  lib.  iii.  c.  3).  The  latter  again 
appears  as  practised  by  drawing  lots  by  arrows  before  the  idol  (Ezek.  xxi.  21, 
"he  shook  the  arrows  "),  which  was  also  a  familiar  form  of  divination  among 
the  heathen  Arabs  {Journal  of  Phil.,  as  cited  above,  xiii.  277  sqq.).  Under 
the  Levitical  law  the  priestly  lot  exists  in  theory  in  a  very  modified  form, 
confined  to  the  high  priest,  but  in  reality  it  was  obsolete  (Neh.  xii.  65). 


AND    THE    PEIESTS  293 


been  connected  with  the  priesthood  and  the  sanctuary  until 
the  close  of  the  kingdom  (Isa.  xxviii.  7;  Jer.  xxiii.  11,  xxvi. 
11  ;  comp.  Hosea  iv.  5).  They  were,  in  fact,  part  of  the 
establishment  of  the  Temple,  and  subject  to  priestly  discipline 
(Jer.  xxix.  26,  xx.  1  sq.).  They  played  into  the  priests'  hands 
(Jer.  V.  31),  had  a  special  interest  in  the  affairs  of  worship  (Jer. 
xxvii.  16),  and  appear  in  all  their  conflicts  with  Jeremiah  as 
the  partisans  of  the  theory  that  Jehovah's  help  is  absolutely 
secured  by  the  Temple  and  its  services. 

But  the  prophecy  which  thus  co-operates  with  the  priests 
is  not  spiritual  prophecy.  It  is  a  kind  of  prophecy  which  the 
Old  Testament  calls  divination,  which  traffics  in  dreams  in 
place  of  Jehovah's  word  (Jer.  xxiii.  28),  and  which,  like 
heathen  divination,  presents  features  akin  to  insanity  that 
require  to  be  repressed  by  physical  constraint  (Jer.  xxix.  26). 
Spiritual  prophecy,  in  the  hands  of  Amos,  Isaiah,  and  their 
successors,  has  no  such  alliance  with  the  sanctuary  and  its 
ritual.  It  develops  and  enforces  its  own  doctrine  of  the 
intercourse  of  Jehovah  with  Israel,  and  the  conditions  of  His 
grace,  without  assigning  the  slightest  value  to  priests  and 
sacrifices.  The  sum  of  religion,  according  to  the  prophets,  is 
to  know  Jehovah,  and  obey  His  precepts.  Under  the  system 
of  the  law  enforced  from  the  days  of  Ezra  onwards  an  im- 
portant part  of  these  precepts  was  ritual.  Malachi,  a  con- 
temporary, or  perhaps  rather  an  immediate  precursor  of  Ezra, 
accepts  this  position  as  the  basis  of  his  prophetic  exhortations. 
The  first  proof  of  Israel's  sin  is  to  him  neglect  of  the  sacrificial 
ritual.  The  language  of  the  older  prophets  up  to  Jeremiah  is 
quite  different.  "  What  are  your  many  sacrifices  to  me  ?  saith 
Jehovah  :  I  delight  not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  and  lambs, 
and  he-goats.  Wlien  ye  come  to  see  my  face,  who  hath  asked 
this  at  your  hands,  to  tread  my  courts  ?  Bring  no  more  vain 
oblations  .  .  .  my  soul  hateth  your  new  moons  and  your 
feasts  ;  they  are  a  burden  upon  me ;  I   am  weary  to  bear 


294  THE    PROPHETS 


them"  (Isa,  i.  11  sq.).  "I  hate,  I  despise  your  feast  days, 
and  I  will  not  take  pleasure  in  your  solemn  assemblies. 
Take  away  from  me  the  noise  of  thy  songs,  and  let  me  not 
hear  the  melody  of  thy  viols.  But  let  justice  flow  as  waters, 
and  righteousness  like  a  perennial  stream  "  (Amos  v.  21  sq.). 
It  is  sometimes  argued  that  such  passages  mean  only  that 
Jehovah  will  not  accept  the  sacrifice  of  the  wicked,  and  that 
they  are  quite  consistent  with  a  belief  that  sacrifice  and  ritual 
are  a  necessary  accompaniment  of  true  religion.  But  there 
are  other  texts  which  absolutely  exclude  such  a  view.  Sacri- 
fice is  not  necessary  to  acceptable  religion.  Amos  proves 
God's  indifference  to  ritual  by  reminding  the  people  that 
they  offered  no  sacrifice  and  offerings  to  Him  in  the  wilder- 
ness during  those  forty  years  of  wandering  which  he  elsewhere 
cites  as  a  special  proof  of  Jehovah's  covenant  grace  (Amos  ii. 
10,  V.  25).-^  Micah  declares  that  Jehovah  does  not  require 
sacrifice  ;  He  asks  nothing  of  His  people,  but  "  to  do  justly, 
and  love  mercy,  and  walk  humbly  with  their  God "  (Micah 
vi.  8).  And  Jeremiah  vii.  21  sq.  says  in  express  words, 
"Put  your  burnt  offerings  to  your  sacrifices  and  eat  flesh. 
For  I  spake  not  to  your  fathers  and  gave  them  no  command 
in  the  day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  Egypt  concerning 
burnt  offerinors  or  sacrifices.  But  this  thinc^  commanded  I 
them,  saying,  Obey  my  voice,  and  I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye 
shall  be  my  people,"  etc.     (Comp.  Isa.  xliii.  23  sq.)      The 

^  The  argument  of  Amos  v.  25  is  obscured  in  the  English  translation  by 
the  rendering  of  the  following  verse.  The  verbs  in  that  verse  are  not  perfects, 
and  the  idea  is  not  that  in  the  wilderness  Israel  sacrificed  to  false  gods  in 
place  of  Jehovah.  Verse  26  commences  the  prophecy  of  judgment,  "Ye 
shall  take  up  your  idols,  and  "  (not  as  E.  Y.  "  therefore  ")  "  I  will  send  you  into 
captivity."  The  words  D3\npi<  3313  are  a  gloss,  as  is  indicated  by  the  fact 
that  the  Septuagint  read  them  before  Faicpav  =  |V3.  The  gloss  arose  from 
the  idea  that  Chiun  is  equivalent  to  the  Syriac  Kewan,  a  Persian  name  of  the 
l^lanet  Saturn.  But  the  date  of  Amos  forbids  this  interpretation.  Both  m3D 
and  jV3  must  be  common  nouns  in  the  construct  state,  probably  "the  shrine 
of  your  (idol)  king  and  t\\e\stand  of  your  images,"  i.e.  the  portable  shrine  and 
platform  on  which  the  idols  were  exhibited  and  borne  in  processions. 


LECT.  X  AND    THE    PRIESTS  295 

position  here  laid  down  is  perfectly  clear.  When  the  pro- 
phets positively  condemn  the  worship  of  their  contemporaries, 
they  do  so  because  it  is  associated  with  immorality,  because 
by  it  Israel  hopes  to  gain  God's  favour  without  moral  obe- 
dience. This  does  not  prove  that  they  have  any  objection  to 
sacrifice  and  ritual  in  the  abstract.  But  they  deny  that  these 
things  are  of  positive  divine  institution,  or  have  any  part  in 
the  scheme  on  wliich  Jehovah's  grace  is  administered  in  Israel. 
Jehovah,  they  say,  lias  not  enjoined  sacrifice.  This  does  not 
imply  that  He  has  never  accepted  sacrifice,  or  that  ritual 
service  is  absolutely  wTong.  But  it  is  at  best  mere  form, 
which  does  not  purchase  any  favour  from  Jehovah,  and  might 
be  given  up  without  offence.  It  is  impossible  to  give  a  flatter 
contradiction  to  the  traditional  theory  that  the  Levitical 
system  was  enacted  in  the  wilderness.  The  theology  of  the 
prophets  before  Ezekiel  has  no  place  for  the  system  of  priestly 
sacrifice  and  ritual. 

All  this  is  so  clear  that  it  seems  impossible  to  mis- 
understand it.  Yet  the  position  of  the  prophets  is  not  only 
habitually  explained  away  by  those  who  are  determined  at 
any  cost  to  maintain  the  traditional  view  of  the  Pentateuch, 
but  is  still  more  seriously  misunderstood  by  a  current  ration- 
alism not  altogether  confined  to  those  who,  on  princi^^le,  deny 
the  reality  of  positive  revelation.  It  is  a  widespread  opinion 
that  the  prophets  are  the  advocates  of  natural  religion,  and 
that  this  is  the  reason  of  their  indifference  to  a  religion  of 
ordinances  and  ritual.  On  the  naturalistic  theory  of  religion, 
ethical  monotheism,  is  the  natural  belief  of  mankind,  not,  in- 
deed, attained  at  once  in  all  races,  but  worked  out  for  them- 
selves by  the  great  thinkers  of  humanity,  continually  reflecting 
on  the  ordinary  phenomena  of  life  and  history.  It  is  held 
that  natural  religion  is  the  only  true  religion,  that  the  proof 
of  its  truth  lay  open  to  all  men  in  all  countries,  and  that 
Christianity  itself,  so  far  as  it  is  true,  is  merely  the  historical 


296  THE    PROPHETIC 


development,  in  one  part  of  the  world,  of  those  ideas  of  ethical 
monotheism  which  other  nations  than  Israel  might  have 
worked  out  equally  well  on  the  basis  of  their  own  experience 
and  reflection.  From  this  point  of  view  the  prophets  are 
regarded  as  advanced  thinkers,  who  had  not  yet  thrown  aside 
all  superstition,  who  were  hampered  by  a  belief  in  miracle 
and  special  revelation,  but  whose  teaching  has  abiding  value 
only  in  proportion  as  it  reduced  these  elements  to  a  sub- 
ordinate place  and  struck  out  new  ideas  essentially  independ- 
ent of  them.  The  prophets,  we  are  told,  believed  themselves 
to  be  inspired.  But  their  true  inspiration  was  only  profound 
thinking.  They  were  inspired  as  all  great  poetic  and  religious 
minds  are  inspired  ;  and  when  they  say  that  God  has  told 
them  certain  things  as  to  His  nature  and  attributes,  this  only 
means  that  they  have  reached  a  profound  conviction  of 
spiritual  truths  concealed  from  their  less  intelligent  contem- 
poraries. The  permanent  truths  of  religion  are  those  which 
spring  up  in  the  breast  without  external  revelation  or  tradi- 
tional teaching.  The  prophets  had  grasped  these  truths  with 
great  force,  and  so  they  were  indifferent  to  the  positive  forms 
which  made  up  the  religion  of  the  mass  of  their  nation.  This 
theory  has  had  an  influence  extending  far  beyond  the  circle 
of  those  who  deliberately  accept  it  in  its  whole  compass. 
Even  popular  theology  is  not  indisposed  to  solve  the  apparent 
contradiction  between  the  Prophets  and  the  Pentateuch,  by 
saying  that  the  former  could  afford  to  overlook  the  positive 
elements  of  Israel's  religion,  because  their  hearts  were  filled 
with  spiritual  truths  belonging  to  another  sphere. 

But  the  prophets  themselves  put  the  case  in  a  very 
different  light.  According  to  them  it  is  their  religion  which 
is  positive,  and  the  popular  worship  which  is  largely  tradi- 
tional and  of  human  growth.  That  Jehovah  is  the  Judge,  the 
Lawgiver,  the  King  of  Israel,  is  a  proposition  which  they 
accept  in  the  most  literal  sense.     Jehovah's  word  and  thoughts 


INSPIRATION  297 


are  as  distinct  from  their  own  words  and  tliouglits  as  those 
of  another  human  person.  The  mark  of  a  false  prophet  is 
that  he  speaks  "  the  vision  of  his  own  heart,  not  from  Jehovah's 
mouth  "  (Jer.  xxiii.  16).  The  word  of  Jehovah,  the  command- 
ments and  revelations  of  Jehovah,  are  given  to  them  inter- 
nally, but  are  not  therefore  identical  with  their  own  reflections. 
They  have  an  external  authority,  the  authority  of  Him  who 
is  the  King  and  Master  of  Israel.  This  is  not  the  place  for  a 
theory  of  revelation.  But  it  is  well  to  observe,  as  a  matter  of 
plain  fact,  that  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets  presents 
phenomena  quite  distinct  from  those  of  any  other  religion. 
In  the  crasser  forms  of  religion  the  supernatural  character  of 
an  oracle  is  held  to  be  proved  by  the  absence  of  self-conscious 
thought.  The  dream,  the  ecstatic  vision,  the  frenzy  of  the 
Pythoness,  seem  divine  because  they  are  not  intelligent.  But 
these  things  are  divination,  not  prophecy.  Jeremiah  draws 
an  express  contrast  between  dreams  and  the  word  of  Jehovah 
(Jer.  xxiii.  25-28).  And  the  visions  of  the  prophets,  which 
were  certainly  rare,  and  by  no  means  the  standard  form  of 
revelation,  are  distinguished  by  the  fact  that  the  seer  retains 
his  consciousness,  his  moral  judgment,  his  power  of  thinking 
(Isa.  vi.).  On  the  other  hand,  the  assertion  so  often  made 
that  the  prophets  identify  the  word  of  Jehovah  with  their 
own  highest  thoughts,  just  as  the  Vedic  poets  do,  ignores  an 
essential  difference  between  the  two  cases.  The  prophets 
drew  a  sharp  distinction  between  their  own  word  and  God*s 
word,  w^hich  these  poets  never  do.  Nor  is  spiritual  prophecy, 
as  other  scholars  hold,  a  natural  product  of  Semitic  religion. 
Semitic  religion,  like  other  religions,  naturally  produces 
diviners ;  but  even  Mohammed  had  no  criterion  apart  from 
his  hysterical  fits  to  distinguish  his  own  thoughts  from  the 
revelations  of  Allah. ^ 

^  The  Greek  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  poet  never  led  to  the 
recognition  of  certain  poems  as  sacred  Scriptures.  But  the  Indian  Vedas 
were  regarded  in  later  times  as  infallible,  eternal,  divine.     In  the  priestly 


298  PEOPHETIC    AND 


According  to  the  prophets,  all  true  knowledge  of  God  is 
reached,  not  by  human  reflection,  but  by  the  instruction  of 
Jehovah  Himself.  Eeligion  is  to  know  Jehovah,  to  fear  Him 
and  obey  His  commandments,  as  one  knows,  fears,  and  obeys 
a  father  and  a  king.  The  relations  of  Jehovah  to  Israel  are 
of  a  perfectly  matter-of-fact  kind.  They  rest  on  the  historical 
fact  that  He  chose  the  people  of  Israel,  brought  them  up  from 
Egypt,  settled  them  in  Canaan,  and  has  ever  since  been 
present  in  the  nation,  issuing  commands  for  its  behaviour  in 
every  concern  of  national  life.  In  every  point  of  conduct 
Israel  is  referred,  not  to  its  own  moral  reflections  and  political 
wisdom,  but  to  the  Word  of  Jehovah. 

According  to  the  traditional  view,  the  Word  of  Jehovah  is 
embodied  in  a  book-revelation.  The  Torah,  "instruction,"  or, 
as  we  should  say,  revelation  of  God,  is  a  written  volume 
deposited  with  the  priests,  which  gives  rules  for  all  national 

bards,  therefore  (the  HisJiis),  the  first  authors  of  the  Vedic  hymns,  we  may 
expect  to  find,  if  anywhere,  a  consciousness  analogous  to  that  of  the  prophets. 
Their  accounts  of  themselves  have  been  collected  by  Dr.  John  Muir  in  his 
Sanscrit  Texts,  vol.  iii.,  and  some  recent  writers  have  laid  great  stress  on  this 
supposed  parallel  to  prophetic  inspiration.  But  what  are  the  facts  ?  The 
Rishis  frequently  speak  of  their  hymns  as  their  own  works,  but  also  some- 
times entertain  the  idea  that  their  prayers,  praises,  and  ceremonies  generally 
were  supernaturally  inspired.  The  gods  are  said  to  "generate"  prayer  ;  the 
prayer  is  god-given.  The  poet,  like  a  Grecian  singer,  calls  on  the  gods  to 
help  his  prayer.  "May  prayer,  brilliant  and  divine,  proceed  from  us."  But 
in  all  this  there  is  no  stricter  conception  of  inspiration  than  in  the  Greek 
poets.  It  is  not  the  word  of  God  that  we  hear,  but  the  poet's  word  aided  by 
the  gods  (compare  Muir,  p.  275).  How  different  is  this  from  the  language  of 
the  prophets  !  "Where  do  the  prophets,"  asks  Merx  [Jenaer  Lit.  Zcit.,  1876, 
p.  19),  "pray  for  illumination  of  spirit,  force  of  poetic  expression,  glowing 
power  of  composition  ? "  The  prophetic  consciousness  of  inspiration  is  clearly 
separated  both  from  the  inspiration  of  the  heathen  fidvTLs  and  from  the  afflatus 
of  the  Indian  or  Grecian  bard. 

On  Mohammed's  inspiration  see  Noldeke,  Gcschichte  des  Qordns,  p.  4. 
* '  He  not  only  gave  out  his  later  revelations,  composed  with  conscious  delibera- 
tion and  the  use  of  foreign  materials,  as  being,  equally  with  the  first  glowing 
productions  of  his  enthusiasm,  angelic  messages  and  proofs  of  the  prophetic 
spirit,  but  made  direct  use  of  pious  fraud  to  gain  adherents,  and  employed 
the  authority  of  the  Koran  to  decide  and  adjust  things  that  had  nothing  to 
do  with  religion." 


PRIESTLY    TORAH  299 


and  personal  conduct,  and  also  provides  the  proper  means  for 
regaining  God's  favour  when  it  has  been  lost  througli  sin. 
But  to  the  prophets  the  Torah  has  a  very  different  meaning. 

The  prophets  did  not  invent  the  word  Torah.  It  is  a 
teclmical  term  of  the  current  traditional  religion.  A  Torah 
is  any  decision  or  instruction  on  matters  of  law  and  conduct 
given  by  a  sacred  authority.  Thus  moreh,  or  giver  of  Torah, 
may  mean  a  soothsayer.  The  oak  of  the  Torah-giver  (Gen. 
xii.  6)  is  identical  with  the  soothsayer's  oak  (Jud.  ix.  37). 
You  remember,  in  illustration  of  this  name,  that  Deborah 
gave  her  prophetic  judgments  under  "the  palm-tree  of 
Deborah"  between  Eamah  and  Bethel.  More  frequent  are 
allusions  to  the  Torah  of  the  priests,  which  in  like  manner 
denotes,  not  a  book  which  they  had  in  their  hands,  but  the 
sacred  decisions  given,  by  the  priestly  oracle  or. otherwise,  in 
the  sanctuary,  which  in  early  Israel  was  the  seat  of  divine 
judgment  (Exod.  xviii.  19,  xxi.  6,  where  for  the  judges  read 
God;  1  Sam.  ii.  25).  Thus  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  10  the  business 
of  the  Levites  is  to  give  Torah  to  Israel  and  to  offer  sacrifice 
to  God.  In  Jer.  xviii.  18  the  people  give  as  a  ground  of 
their  security  against  the  evils  predicted  by  Jeremiah  that 
Torah  shall  not  perish  from  the  priest,  nor  counsel  from  the 
wise,  nor  the  word  from  the  prophet.  The  priests  are  "  they 
that  handle  the  Torah  "  (Jer.  ii.  8).  Micah  complains  that  the 
priests  give  Torahs  or  legal  decisions  for  hire  (Micah  iii.  11). 
In  these  passages  the  Torah  is  not  a  book  but  an  oral  decision  ; 
and  the  grammatical  form  of  the  word,  as  an  infinitive  of  the 
verb  "  to  give  a  decision  or  instruction,"  shows  this  to  be  the 
primitive  sense. 

We  have  seen  how  spiritual  prophecy  branched  off  and 
separated  itself  from  the  popular  prophecy  which  remained 
connected  with  the  sanctuary  and  the  priests.  In  doing  so  it 
carried  its  own  spiritual  Torah  with  it.  When  God  bids 
Isaiah   "  Ijind   up  the   testimony,  seal  the  Torah  among  my 


300  ORAL    AND 


disciples/'  the  reference  is  to  the  revelation  just  given  to  the 
prophet  himself  (Isa.  viii.  16).  To  this  Torah  and  testimony, 
and  not  to  wizards  and  consulters  of  the  dead,  Israel's  appeal 
for  Divine  guidance  lies  (ver.  20).  The  Torah  is  the  living 
prophetic  word.  "  Hear  the  word  of  Jehovah,"  and  "  Give  ear 
to  the  Torah  of  our  God,"  are  parallel  injunctions  by  which 
the  prophet  demands  attention  to  his  divine  message  (Isa.  i. 
10).  The  Torah  is  not  yet  a  finished  and  complete  system, 
booked  and  reduced  to  a  code,  but  a  living  word  in  the  mouth 
of  the  prophets.  In  the  latter  days  the  proof  that  Jehovah  is 
Kingj  in  Zion,  exaltinsj  His  chosen  hill  above  all  the  mountains 
of  the  earth,  will  still  be  that  Torah  proceeds  from  Zion  and 
the  word  of  Jehovah  from  Jerusalem,  so  that  all  nations  come 
thither  for  judgment,  and  Jehovah's  word  establishes  peace 
among  hostile  peoples  (Isa.  ii.  2  sq. ;  Micah  v.  1  sq.).  It  is 
this  continual  living  instruction  of  Jehovah  present  with  His 
people  which  the  prophets,  as  we  have  already  seen,  regard  as 
essential  to  the  welfare  of  Israel.  No  written  book  would 
satisfy  the  thirst  for  God's  Word  of  which  Amos  speaks.  The 
only  thing  that  can  supersede  the  Torah  of  the  prophets  is  the 
Torah  written  in  every  heart  and  spoken  by  every  lip.  "  This  is 
my  covenant  with  them,  saith  Jehovah  :  my  spirit  that  is  upon 
thee,  and  my  words  which  I  have  put  in  thy  mouth,  shall  not 
depart  out  of  thy  mouth,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed,  nor 
out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed's  seed,  saith  Jehovah,  from  hence- 
forth and  for  ever"  (Isa.  lix.  21).  God's  AVord,  not  in  a  book 
but  in  the  heart  and  mouth  of  His  servants,  is  the  ultimate 
ideal  as  well  as  the  first  postulate  of  prophetic  theology. 

How  then  did  this  revelation,  which  is  essentially  living 
speech,  pass  into  the  form  of  a  written  word  such  as  we  still 
possess  in  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  ?  To  answer  this 
question  as  the  prophets  themselves  would  do,  we  must 
remember  that  among  primitive  nations,  and  indeed  among 
Eastern  nations  to  this  dav,  books  are  not  the  foundation  of 


WRITTEX    TORAH  301 


sound  knowledge,  Tlie  ideal  of  instruction  is  oral  teaching, 
and  the  worthiest  shrine  of  truths  that  must  not  die  is  the 
memory  and  heart  of  a  faithful  disciple.  The  ideal  state  of 
things  is  that  in  which  the  Torali  is  written  in  Israel's  heart, 
and  all  his  children  are  disciples  of  Jehovah  (Isa.  liv.  13). 
But  this  ideal  was  far  from  the  actual  reality,  and  so  in 
religion,  as  in  other  branches  of  knowledge,  the  written  roll 
to  which  truth  is  committed  supplies  the  lack  of  faithful 
disciples.  This  comes  out  quite  clearly  in  the  case  of  the 
prophetic  books.  The  prophets  write  the  w^ords  which  their 
contemporaries  refuse  to  hear.  So  Isaiah  seals  his  revelation 
among  the  disciples  of  Jehovah ;  that  is,  he  takes  them  as 
witnesses  to  a  document  which  is,  as  it  were,  a  formal  testi- 
mony against  Israel  (Isa.  viii.  1  sq.,  16).  So  Jeremiah,  after 
three -and -twenty  years  spent  in  speaking  to  a  rebellious 
people,  whites  down  his  prophecies  that  they  may  have 
another  opportunity  to  hear  and  repent  (Jer.  xxxvi.).  Jehovah's 
Word  has  a  scope  that  reaches  beyond  the  immediate  occasion, 
and  a  living  force  which  prevents  it  from  returning  to  Him 
without  effect ;  and  if  it  is  not  at  once  taken  up  into  the 
hearts  of  the  people,  it  must  be  set  in  writing  for  future  use 
and  for  a  testimony  in  time  to  come.  Thus  the  prophets 
become  authors,  and  they  and  their  disciples  are  students  of 
written  revelation.  The  prophets  give  many  signs  of  acquaint- 
ance with  the  writings  of  their  predecessors,  and  sometimes 
even  quote  them  verbally.  Thus  Jer.  xlix.  7-22  and  the 
Book  of  Obadiah  seem  both  to  make  use  of  an  earlier  oracle 
against  Edom  ;^  and  the  prophecy  against  Moab  in  Isa.  xv.  xvi. 
is  followed  by  the  note  of  a  later  prophet :  "  This  is  the  word 
which  Jehovah  spake  against  Moab  long  ago.  But  now^ 
Jehovah  speaks,  saying,  Within  three  short  years  the  glory  of 
Moab  shall  be  abased  "  (Isa.  xvi.  13,  14).     Thus  we  see  why 

1  See  the  article  Obadiah  in  Eiic.  Brit,  9tli  ed.,  and  Driver,  Introduc- 
tion, p.  298  sq. 


302  ORAL    AND 


the  beginnings  of  prophetic  literature  in  the  eighth  century 
coincide  with  the  great  breach  between  spiritual  prophecy  and 
the  popular  religion.  Elisha  had  no  need  to  write,  for  his  word 
bore  immediate  fruit  in  the  overthrow  of  the  house  of  Omri 
and  the  destruction  of  the  worshippers  of  Baal.  The  old 
prophecy  left  its  record  in  social  and  political  successes.  The 
new  prophecy  that  begins  with  Amos  spoke  to  a  people  that 
would  not  hear,  and  looked  to  no  immediate  success,  but  only 
to  a  renovation  of  the  remnant  of  Israel  to  follow  on  a 
completed  work  of  judgment.  When  the  people  forbid  the 
prophets  to  preach,  they  begin  perforce  to  write  (Amos  ii.  12, 
vii.  12,  13  ;  Micah  ii.  6 ;  Jer.  xxxvi.  5  sq.). 

But,  though  the  properly  prophetic  literature  begins  in 
the  eighth  century  B.C.,  do  not  the  prophets,  it  may  be  asked, 
base  their  teaching  on  an  earlier  written  revelation  of  another 
kind  ?  They  certainly  hold  that  the  religion  of  Israel  is  as 
old  as  the  Exodus.  They  speak  of  Moses.  "  By  a  prophet," 
says  Hosea,  "Jehovah  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt."  "I 
brought  thee  up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  redeemed  thee 
out  of  the  house  of  bondage,"  says  Micah  ;  "  and  I  sent  before 
thee  Moses,  Aaron,  and  Miriam."  Do  not  these  references 
presuppose  the  written  law  of  Moses  ?  This  question  requires 
careful  consideration. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  prophets  regard  themselves 
as  successors  of  Moses.  He  is,  as  we  see  from  Hosea,  the 
first  prophet  of  Israel.  But  the  prophets  of  the  eighth 
century  never  speak  of  a  written  law  of  Moses.  The  only 
passage  which  has  been  taken  to  do  so  is  Hosea  viii.  12.  And 
here  the  grammatical  translation  is,  "  Though  I  wrote  to  him 
my  Torah  in  ten  thousand  precepts,  they  would  be  esteemed 
as  a  strange  thing."  It  is  simple  matter  of  fact  that  the 
prophets  do  not  refer  to  a  written  Torah  as  the  basis  of  their 
teaching,  and  we  have  seen  that  they  absolutely  deny  the 
existence  of  a  binding  ritual  law.     But,  on  the  other  hand,  it 


LECT.  X  WRITTEN    TORAH  303 

is  clear  that  the  Torah  is  not  a  new  thing  in  the  eiglith 
century.  The  false  religion  of  the  mass  of  the  nation  is 
always  described  as  a  corruption  of  truths  which  Israel  ought 
to  know.  "  Thou  hast  forgotten  the  Torah  of  thy  God,"  says 
Hosea  to  the  priests  (Hos.  iv.  6).  It  cannot  fairly  be  doubted 
that  the  Torah  which  the  priests  have  forgotten  is  Mosaic 
Torah.  For  the  prophets  do  not  acknowledge  the  priests  as 
organs  of  revelation.  Their  knowledge  was  essentially  tradi- 
tional. Such  traditions  are  based  on  old-established  law,  and 
they  themselves  undoubtedly  referred  their  wisdom  to  Moses, 
who,  either  directly  or  through  Aaron, — for  our  argument  it 
matters  not  which, — is  the  father  of  the  priests  as  well  as  the 
father  of  the  prophets  (Deut.  xxxiii.  4,  S  sq.;  1  Sam.  ii.  27 
sq.).  That  this  should  be  so  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case. 
Jehovah  as  King  of  Israel  must  from  the  first  have  given 
permanent  laws  as  well  as  precepts  for  immediate  use.  What 
is  quite  certain  is  that,  according  to  the  prophets,  the  Torah 
of  ]Moses  did  not  embrace  a  law  of  ritual.  Worship  by 
sacrifice,  and  all  that  belongs  to  it,  is  no  part  of  the  divine 
Torah  to  Israel.  It  forms,  if  you  will,  part  of  natural  religion, 
which  other  nations  share  with  Israel,  and  which  is  no  feature 
in  the  distinctive  precepts  given  at  the  Exodus.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  this  view  is  in  accordance  with  the  Bible  history, 
and  with  what  we  know  from  other  sources.  Jacob  is  repre- 
sented as  paying  tithes  ;  all  the  patriarchs  build  altars  and 
do  sacrifice ;  the  law  of  blood  is  as  old  as  Noah  ;  the  con- 
secration of  firstlings  is  known  to  the  Arabs  ;  the  autumn 
feast  of  the  vintage  is  Canaanite  as  well  as  Hebrew;  and 
these  are  but  examples  which  might  be  largely  multiplied. 

The  true  distinction  of  Israel's  religion  lies  in  the  character 
of  the  Deity  who  has  made  Himself  personally  known  to  His 
people,  and  demands  of  them  a  life  conformed  to  His  spiritual 
character  as  a  righteous  and  forgiving  God.  The  difference 
between  Jehovah  and  the  gods  of  the  nations  is  that  He  does 


304  PROPHETIC    AND 


LECT.  X 


not  require  sacrifice,  but  only  to  do  justly,  and  love  mercy, 
and  walk  humbly  with  God.  This  standpoint  is  not  confined 
to  the  prophetic  books ;  it  is  the  standpoint  of  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, which  contain  no  precept  of  positive  worship. 
But  according  to  many  testimonies  of  the  pre-exilic  books,  it 
is  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  laws  written  on  the  two  tables 
of  stone,  that  are  Jehovah's  covenant  with  Israel.  In  1  Kings 
viii.  9,  21  these  tables  are  identified  with  the  covenant 
deposited  in  the  sanctuary.  And  with  this  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  agrees  (Deut.  v.  2,  22).  Whatever  is  more  than 
the  words  spoken  at  Horeb  is  not  strictly  covenant,  but  pro- 
phetic teaching,  continual  divine  guidance  addressed  to  those 
needs  which  in  heathen  nations  are  met  by  divination,  but 
which  in  Israel  are  supplied  by  the  personal  word  of  the 
revealing  God  ministered  through  a  succession  of  prophets 
(Deut.  xviii.  9  sq^.).  Even  Ezra  (ix.  11)  still  speaks  of  the  law 
which  forbids  intermarriage  with  the  people  of  Canaan  as  an 
ordinance  of  the  prophets  (plural).  Yet  this  is  now  read  as  a 
Pentateuchal  law  (Deut.  vii.). 

To  understand  this  view,  we  must  remember  that  among 
the  pure  Semites  even  at  the  present  day  the  sphere  of  legis- 
lation is  far  narrower  than  in  our  more  complicated  society. 
Ordinary  affairs  of  life  are  always  regulated  by  consuetudinary 
law,  preserved  without  writing  or  the  need  for  trained  judges, 
in  the  memory  and  practice  of  the  family  and  the  tribe.  It 
is  only  in  cases  of  difficulty  that  an  appeal  is  taken  to  the 
judge — the  "  Cadi  of  the  Arabs."  It  was  not  otherwise  in 
the  days  of  Moses.  It  was  only  hard  matters  that  were 
brought  to  him,  and  referred  by  him,  not  to  a  fixed  code  of 
law,  but  to  Divine  decision  (Exod.  xviii.  19-26),  which  formed 
a  precedent  for  future  use.  Of  this  state  of  things  the  condi- 
tion of  affairs  under  the  Judges  is  the  natural  sequel.  But 
Moses  did  more  than  any  "  Cadi  of  the  Arabs,"  who  owes  his 
authority  to  superior  knowledge  of  legal  tradition.     He  was 


MOSAIC   TOR  AH  305 


a  prophet  as  well  as  a  judge.  As  such  he  founded  in  Israel 
the  great  principles  of  the  moral  religion  of  the  righteous 
Jehovah.  All  else  was  but  a  development  of  the  fundamental 
revelation,  and  from  the  standpoint  of  prophetic  religion  it  is 
not  of  importance  whether  these  developments  were  given 
directly  by  Moses,  or  only  by  the  prophets  his  successors. 
But  all  true  Torah  must  move  in  the  lines  of  the  original 
covenant.  The  standard  of  the  prophets  is  the  moral  law, 
and  because  the  priests  had.  forgotten  this  they  declare  them 
to  have  forgotten  the  law,  however  copious  their  Torah,  and 
however  great  their  interest  in  details  of  ritual.  Forgotten 
or  perverted  by  the  priests  (Hos.  iv.  6 ;  Zeph.  iii.  4),  the  true 
Torah  of  Jehovah  is  preserved  by  the  prophets.  But  the 
prophets  before  Ezekiel  have  no  concern  in  the  law  of  ritual. 
They  make  no  effort  to  recall  the  priests  to  their  duty  in  this 
respect,  except  in  the  negative  sense  of  condemning  such 
elements  in  the  popular  worship  as  are  inconsistent  with  the 
spiritual  attributes  of  Jehovah. 

From  the  ordinary  presuppositions  with  which  we  are 
accustomed  to  approach  the  Old  Testament,  there  is  one 
point  in  this  position  of  the  prophets  which  still  creates  a 
difficulty.  If  it  is  true  that  they  exclude  the  sacrificial 
worship  from  the  positive  elements  of  Israel's  religion,  what 
becomes  of  the  doctrine  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  which  we 
are  accustomed  to  regard  as  mainly  expressed  in  the  typical 
ordinances  of  atonement  ?  It  is  necessary,  in  conclusion,  to 
say  a  word  on  this  head.  The  point,  I  think,  may  be  put 
thus.  When  Micah,  for  example,  says  that  Jehovah  requires 
nothing  of  man  but  to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk 
humbly  with  God,  we  are  apt  to  take  this  utterance  as  an 
expression  of  Old  Testament  legalism.  According  to  the  law 
of  works,  these  things  are  of  course  sufficient.  But  sinful 
man,  sinful  Israel,  cannot  perform  them  perfectly.  Is  it  not 
therefore  necessary  for  the  law  to  come  in,  with  its  atone- 


306  PROPHETIC   DOCTRINE  lect.  x 

ment,  to  supply  the  imperfection  of  Israel's  obedience  ?  I 
ask  you  to  observe  that  such  a  view  of  the  prophetic  teaching 
is  the  purest  rationalism,  necessarily  allied  with  the  false  idea 
that  the  prophets  are  advocates  of  natural  morality.  The 
prophetic  theory  of  religion  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  law 
of  works.  Religion,  they  teach,  is  the  personal  fellowship  of 
Jehovah  with  Israel,  in  which  He  shapes  His  people  to  His 
own  ends,  impresses  His  own  likeness  upon  them  by  a  con- 
tinual moral  guidance.  Such  a  religion  cannot  exist  under  a 
bare  law  of  works.  Jehovah  did  not  find  Israel  a  holy  and 
righteous  people ;  He  has  to  make  it  so  by  wise  discipline 
and  loving  guidance,  which  refuses  to  be  frustrated  by  the 
people's  shortcomings  and  sins.  The  continuance  of  Jehovah's 
love  in  spite  of  Israel's  transgressions,  which  is  set  forth  with 
so  much  force  in  the  opening  chapters  of  Hosea,  is  the  for- 
giveness of  sins. 

Under  the  Old  Testament  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  not 
an  abstract  doctrine  but  a  thing  of  actual  experience.  The 
proof,  nay,  the  substance,  of  forgiveness  is  the  continued 
enjoyment  of  those  practical  marks  of  Jehovah's  favour 
which  are  experienced  in  peaceful  occupation  of  Canaan  and 
deliverance  from  all  trouble.  This  practical  way  of  estimating 
forgiveness  is  common  to  the  prophets  with  their  contem- 
poraries. Jehovah's  anger  is  felt  in  national  calamity,  for- 
giveness is  realised  in  the  removal  of  chastisement.  The 
proof  that  Jehovah  is  a  forgiving  God  is  that  He  does  not 
retain  His  anger  for  ever,  but  turns  and  has  compassion  on 
His  people  (Micah  vii.  18  sq. ;  Isa.  xii.  1).  There  is  no  meta- 
physic  in  this  conception,  it  simply  accepts  the  analogy  of 
anger  and  forgiveness  in  human  life. 

In  the  popular  religion  the  people  hoped  to  influence 
Jehovah's  disposition  towards  them  by  gifts  and  sacrifices 
(Micah  vi.  4  sq.),  by  outward  tokens  of  penitence.  It  is 
against  this  view  that  the  prophets  set  forth  the  true  doctrine 


OF    FORGIVENESS  307 


of  forgiveness.  Jehovah's  anger  is  not  caprice  but  a  just 
indignation,  a  necessary  side  of  His  moral  kingship  in  Israel. 
He  chastises  to  work  penitence,  and  it  is  only  to  the  penitent 
that  He  can  extend  forgiveness.  By  returning  to  obedience 
the  people  regain  the  marks  of  Jehovah's  love,  and  again 
experience  His  goodness  in  deliverance  from  calamity  and 
happy  possession  of  a  fruitful  land.  According  to  the 
prophets,  this  law  of  chastisement  and  forgiveness  works 
directly,  without  the  intervention  of  any  ritual  sacrament. 
Jehovah's  love  is  never  withdrawn  from  His  people,  even  in 
their  deepest  sin  and  in  His  sternest  chastisements.  "  How 
can  I  give  thee  np,  Ephraim  ?  How  can  I  cast  thee  away, 
Israel?  My  heart  burns  within  me,  my  compassion  is  all 
kindled.  I  wiU  not  execute  the  fierceness  of  my  wrath  ;  I 
will  not  turn  to  destroy  thee  :  for  I  am  God  and  not  man, 
the  Holy  One  in  the  midst  of  thee "  (Hos.  xi.  8).  This 
inalienable  Divine  love,  the  sovereignty  of  God's  own  re- 
deeming purpose,  is  the  ground  of  forgiveness.  "  I,  even  I, 
am  he  that  blotteth  out  thine  iniquity  for  mine  own  sake  " 
(Isa.  xliii.  25).  And  so  the  prophets  know,  with  a  certainty 
that  rests  in  the  unchangeable  heart  of  God,  that  through  all 
chastisement,  nay,  through  the  ruin  of  the  state,  the  true 
remnant  of  Israel  shall  return  to  Jehovah,  not  with  sacrifices, 
but  with  lips  instead  of  bullocks,  as  Hosea  puts  it,  saying, 
Take  away  all  iniquity  and  receive  us  graciously  (Hos.  xiv.  2). 
All  prophetic  prediction  is  but  the  development  in  many 
forms,  and  in  answer  to  the  needs  of  Israel  in  various  times, 
of  this  supreme  certainty,  that  God's  love  works  triumphantly 
in  all  His  judgments  ;  that  Israel  once  redeemed  from  Egypt 
shall  again  be  redeemed  not  only  from  bondage  but  from  sin ; 
that  Jehovah  will  perform  the  truth  to  Jacob,  the  mercy  to 
Abraham,  which  He  sware  to  Israel's  fathers  from  the  days 
of  old  (Micah  vii.  20).  Accordingly,  the  texts  which  call 
for  obedience  and  not  sacrifice  (Micah  vi.  ;  Jer.  vii.  etc.),  for 


308  DOCTRINE    OF    FORGIVENESS  lect.  x 

humanity  instead  of  outward  tokens  of  contrition  (Isa.  Iviii.), 
come  in  at  the  very  same  point  with  the  atoning  ordinances 
of  the  ritual  law.  They  do  not  set  forth  the  legal  conditions 
of  acceptance  without  forgiveness,  but  the  requisites  of  for- 
giveness itself.  According  to  the  prophets,  Jehovah  asks 
only  a  penitent  heart  and  desires  no  sacrifice  ;  according  to 
the  ritual  law.  He  desires  a  penitent  heart  ap^^roaching  Him 
in  certain  sacrificial  sacraments.  The  law  adds  something 
to  the  prophetic  teaching,  something  which  the  prophets  do 
not  know,  and  which,  if  both  are  parts  of  one  system  of  true 
revelation,  was  either  superseded  before  the  prophets  rose, 
or  began  only  after  they  had  spoken.  But  the  ritual  law 
was  not  superseded  by  prophecy.  It  comes  into  full  force 
only  at  the  close  of  the  prophetic  period  in  the  reformation 
of  Ezra.  And  so  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  the  ritual 
element  which  the  law  adds  to  the  prophetic  doctrine  of 
forgiveness  became  part  of  the  system  of  Old  Testament 
religion  only  after  the  prophets  had  spoken.^ 

^  Properly  to  understand  the  prophetic  doctrine  of  forgiveness,  we  must 
remember  that  the  problem  of  the  acceptance  of  the  individual  with  God  was 
never  fully  solved  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  prophets  always  deal  with  the 
nation  in  its  unity  as  the  object  of  wrath  and  forgiveness.  The  religious  life 
of  the  individual  is  still  included  in  that  of  the  nation.  When  we,  by 
analogy,  apply  what  the  prophets  say  of  the  nation  to  the  forgiveness  of  the 
individual,  we  must  remember  that  Israel's  history  starts  with  a  work  of 
redemption — deliverance  from  Egypt.  To  this  objective  proof  of  Jehovah's 
love  the  prophets  look  back,  just  as  we  look  to  the  finished  work  of  Christ. 
In  it  is  contained  the  pledge  of  Divine  love,  giving  confidence  to  approach 
God  and  seek  His  forgiveness.  But  while  the  Old  Testament  believer  had  no 
difficulty  in  assuring  himself  of  Jehovah's  Icve  to  Israel,  it  was  not  so  easy  to 
find  a  pledge  of  His  grace  to  the  individual,  and  especially  not  easy  to  appre- 
hend God  as  a  forgiving  God  under  personal  affliction.  Here  especially  the 
defect  of  the  dispensation  came  out,  and  the  problem  of  individual  acceptance 
with  God,  which  was  acutely  realised  in  and  after  the  fall  of  the  nation,  when 
the  righteous  so  often  suff'ered  with  the  wicked,  is  that  most  closely  bound  up 
with  the  interpretation  of  the  atoning  sacrifices  of  the  Levitical  ritual. 


LECTUKE  XI 

THE   PENTATEUCH:   THE    FIRST  LEGISLATION 

The  results  of  our  investigation  up  to  this  point  are  not 
critical  but  historical,  and,  if  you  will,  theological.  The 
Hebrews  before  the  Exile  knew  a  twofold  Torah,  the  Torah 
of  the  priests  and  that  of  the  prophets.  Neither  Torah 
corresponds  with  the  present  Pentateuch.  The  prophets 
altogether  deny  to  the  law  of  sacrifice  the  character  of 
positive  revelation;  their  attitude  to  questions  of  ritual  is 
the  negative  attitude  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  content  to 
forbid  what  is  inconsistent  with  the  true  nature  of  Jehovah, 
and  for  the  rest  to  leave  matters  to  their  own  course.  The 
priests,  on  the  contrary,  have  a  ritual  and  legal  Torah 
which  has  a  recognised  place  in  the  state;  but  neither  in 
the  old  priestly  family  of  Eli  nor  in  the  Jerusalem  priest- 
hood of  the  sons  of  Zadok  did  the  rules  and  practice 
of  the  priests  correspond  with  the  finished  system  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

These  results  have  a  much  larger  interest  than  tlie 
question  of  the  date  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  more  im- 
portant to  understand  the  method  of  God's  grace  in  Israel 
than  to  settle  when  a  particular  book  was  written ;  and  we 
now  see  that,  whatever  the  age  of  the  Pentateuch  as  a  written 
code,  the  Levitical  system  of  communion  with  God,  the 
Levitical  sacraments  of  atonement,  were  not  the  forms  under 


310  THE    LAW 


which  God's  grace  worked,  and  to  which  His  revelation 
accommodated  itself,  in  Israel  before  the  Exile. 

The  Levitical  ordinances,  whether  they  existed  before  the 
Exile  or  not,  were  not  yet  God's  word  to  Israel  at  that  time. 
For  God's  word  is  the  expression  of  His  practical  will.  And 
the  history  and  the  prophets  alike  make  it  clear  that  God's 
will  for  Israel's  salvation  took  quite  another  course. 

The  current  view  of  the  Pentateuch  is  mainly  concerned 
to  do  literal  justice  to  the  phrase  "The  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses,  saying  "  thus  and  thus.  But  to  save  the  literal  "  unto 
Moses  "  is  to  sacrifice  the  far  more  important  words  "  The 
Lord  spake."  The  time  when  these  ritual  ordinances  became 
God's  word — that  is,  became  a  divinely  sanctioned  means  for 
checking  the  rebellion  of  the  Israelites  and  keeping  them  as 
close  to  spiritual  religion  as  their  imperfect  understanding 
and  hard  hearts  permitted — was  subsequent  to  the  work  of 
the  prophets.  As  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  the  Law  con- 
tinues the  work  of  the  prophets,  and  great  part  of  the  Law 
was  not  yet  known  to  the  prophets  as  God's  word. 

The  ritual  law  is,  strictly  speaking,  a  fusion  of  prophetic 
and  priestly  Torah.  Its  object  is  to  provide  a  scheme  of 
worship,  in  the  pre-Christian  sense  of  that  word,  consistent 
with  the  unique  holiness  of  Jehovah,  and  yet  not  beyond  the 
possibility  of  practical  realisation  in  a  nation  that' was  not 
ripe  to  enter  into  present  fruition  of  the  evangelical  pre- 
dictions of  the  prophets.  From  the  time  of  Ezra  downwards 
this  object  was  practically  realised.  But  before  the  Captivity 
it  not  only  was  not  realised,  but  was  n'ot  even  contemplated. 
Ezekiel,  himself  an  exile,  is  the  first  prophet  who  proposes 
a  reconstruction  of  ritual  in  conformity  with  the  spiritual 
truths  of  prophecy.  And  he  does  so,  not  like  Ezra  by  recall- 
ing the  nation  to  the  law  of  Moses,  but  by  sketching  an 
independent  scheme  of  ritual,  which  unquestionably  had  a 
great  influence  on  the  subsequent  development.     Jeremiah, 


LECT.  XI  OF    MOSES  311 


like  Ezekiel,  was  a  priest  as  well  as  a  prophet,  but  there  is 
nothing  in  Jeremiah  which  recognises  the  necessity  for  such 
a  sclieme  of  ritual  as  Ezekiel  maps  out. 

When  the  Levitical  law  first  comes  on  the  stage  of  actual 
history  at  the  time  of  Ezra,  it  presents  itself  as  the  Law  of 
Moses.  People  who  have  not  understood  the  Old  Testament 
are  accustomed  to  say  that  this  is  either  literally  true  or  a 
lie ;  that  the  Pentateuch  is  either  the  literary  work  of  Moses, 
or  else  a  barefaced  imposture.  The  reverent  and  thoughtful 
student,  who  knows  the  complicated  difficulties  of  the  prob- 
lem, will  not  willingly  accept  this  statement  of  the  ques- 
tion. If  we  are  tied  up  to  make  a  choice  between  these  two 
alternatives,  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  all  the  historical 
evidence  that  has  come  before  us  points  in  the  direction  of 
the  second.  If  our  present  Pentateuch  was  written  by  Moses, 
it  was  lost  as  completely  as  any  book  could  be.  The  pro- 
phets know  the  history  of  Moses  and  the  patriarchs,  they 
know  that  Moses  is  the  founder  of  the  Torah,  but  they  do 
not  know  that  complete  system  which  we  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  suppose  his  work.  And  the  priests  of  Shiloh  and 
the  Temple  do  not  know  the  very  parts  of  the  Torah  which 
would  have  done  most  to  raise  their  authority  and  influence. 
At  the  time  of  Josiah  a  book  of  the  Law  is  found,  but  it  is 
still  not  the  whole  Pentateuch,  for  it  does  not  contain  the 
full  Levitical  system.  From  the  death  of  Joshua  to  Ezra  is, 
on  the  usual  chronology,  just  one  thousand  years.  "Where 
was  the  Pentateuch  all  this  time,  if  it  was  unknown  to 
every  one  of  those  who  ought  to  have  had  most  interest 
in  it  ?  1 

^  I  may  here  notice  one  passage  which  has  been  cited  {e.g.  by  Keil,  Intro- 
duction, vol.  i.  p.  170  of  the  Eng.  tr. )  as  containing  a  reference  to  the  written 
law  in  the  time  of  King  Jehoash  of  Judah.  In  2  Kings  xi.  12  we  read  that 
Jehoiadah  "  brought  forth  the  king's  son,  and  put  the  crown  upon  him  and 
gave  him  the  testimony."  But  here  everything  turns  on  the  words  "gave 
him,"  and  these  are  not  in  the  Hebrew,  which  must,  according  to  grammar, 
be  rendered  "  put  upon  him  the  crown  and  the  testimony. "    The  "testimony," 


312  MEANING    OF 


It  is  plain  that  no  thinking  man  can  be  asked  to  accept 
the  Pentateuch  as  the  composition  of  Moses  without  some 
evidence  to  that  effect.  But  evidence  a  thousand  years  after 
date  is  no  evidence  at  all,  when  the  intervening  period  bears 
unanimous  witness  in  a  different  sense.  By  insisting  that 
the  whole  Pentateuch  is  one  work  of  Moses  and  all  of  equal 
date,  the  traditional  view  cuts  off  all  possibility  of  proof  that 
its  kernel  is  Mosaic.  For  it  is  certain  that  Israel,  before  the 
Exile,  did  not  know  all  the  Pentateuch.  Therefore,  if  the 
Pentateuch  is  all  one,  they  did  not  know  any  part  of  it.  If 
we  are  shut  up  to  choose  between  a  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
whole  five  books  and  the  opinion  that  the  Pentateuch  is  a 
mere  forgery,  the  sceptics  must  gain  their  case. 

It  is  useless  to  appeal  to  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  for 
help  in  such  a  strait ;  for  all  sound  apologetic  admits  that  the 
proof  that  a  book  is  credible  must  precede  belief  that  it  is 
inspired. 

But  are  we  really  shut  up  to  choose  between  these 
extreme  alternatives  ?  The  Pentateuch  is  known  as  the  Law 
of  Moses  in  the  age  that  begins  with  Ezra.  What  is  the 
sense  which  the  Jews  themselves,  from  the  age  of  Ezra  down- 
wards, attach  to  this  expression  ?  In  one  way  they  certainly 
take  a  false  and  unhistorical  sense  out  of  the  words.  They 
assume  that  the  law  of  ordinances,  or  rather  the  law  of  works, 
moral  and  ceremonial,  was  the  principle  of  all  Israel's  religion. 
They  identify  Mosaism  with  Pharisaism.  That  is  certainly  an 
error,  as  the  History  and  the  Prophets  prove.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Jews  are  accustomed  to  use  the  word  Mosaic 
quite  indifferently  of  the  direct  teaching  of  Moses,  and  of  the 
precepts  drawn  from  Mosaic  principles  and  adapted  to  later 
needs.     According  to  a  well-known  passage  in  the  Talmud, 

therefore,  is  part  of  the  royal  insignia,  which  is  absurd.  But  the  addition  of 
a  single  letter,  nnj^VH  for  nn^n,  gives  the  excellent  sense,  "  put  on  him  the 
cro^vn  and  the  bracelets."  The  crown  and  the  bracelet  appear  togetlier  as  the 
royal  insignia  in  2  Sam.  i.  10.     This  certain  correction  is  due  to  Wellhausen. 


MOSAIC    TOR  AH  313 


even  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa  were  implicitly  given 
to  Moses  at  Sinai.  So  far  is  this  idea  carried  that  the  Torah 
is  often  identified  with  the  Decalogue,  in  which  all  other 
parts  of  the  Law  are  involved.  Thus  the  words  of  Deut.  v. 
22,  which  refer  to  the  Decalogue,  are  used  as  a  proof  that  the 
five  books  of  Moses  can  never  pass  away.^  The  beginnings 
of  this  way  of  thought  are  clearly  seen  in  Ezra  ix.  11,  where 
a  law  of  the  Pentateuch  is  cited  as  an  ordinance  of  the 
prophets.  Mosaic  law  is  not  held  to  exclude  post-Mosaic 
developments.  That  the  whole  law  is  the  Law  of  Moses  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  every  precept  was  developed  in 
detail  in  his  days,  but  only  that  the  distinctive  law  of  Israel 
owes  to  him  the  origin  and  principles  in  which  all  detailed 
precepts  are  implicitly  contained.  The  development  into 
explicitness  of  what  Moses  gave  in  principle  is  the  work  of 
continuous  divine  teaching  in  connection  with  new  historical 
situations. 

This  way  of  looking  at  the  law  of  Moses  is  not  an  inven- 
tion of  modern  critics ;  it  actually  existed  among  the  Jews.  I 
do  not  say  that  they  made  good  use  of  it ;  on  the  contrary, 
in  the  period  of  the  Scribes,  it  led  to  a  great  overgrowth  of 
traditions,  which  almost  buried  the  written  word.  But  the 
principle  is  older  than  its  abuse,  and  it  seems  to  offer  a  key 
for  the  solution  of  the  serious  difficulties  in  which  we  are 
involved  by  the  apparent  contradictions  between  the  Penta- 
teuch on  the  one  hand  and  the  historical  books  and  the 
Prophets  on  the  other. 

If  the  word  Mosaic  was  sometimes  understood  as  meaning 
no  more  than  Mosaic  in  principle,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the 
fusion  of  priestly  and  prophetic  Torah  in  our  present  Penta- 
teuch may  be   called   Mosaic,  though  many  things  in  its 

^  Berachoth  Bah.  5,  a  (p.  234  in  Schwab's  French  translation,  Paris,  1871). 
Megilla  Jer.,  cited  in  Lecture  VI.  p.  187.  Compare  "Weber,  Syst.  des  altsynagog. 
Theol.  (Leipzig,  1880),  p.  89  sq.,  and  Dr.  M.  Wise  in  the  Hebrew  Review, 
vol.  i.  p.  12  sq.  (Cincinnati,  1880). 


314  FUNCTION   OF 


system  were  unknown  to  the  History  and  the  Prophets  before 
the  Exile.  For  Moses  was  priest  as  well  as  prophet,  and  both 
priests  and  prophets  referred  the  origin  of  their  Torah  to  him. 
In  the  age  of  the  prophetic  writings  the  two  Torahs  had  fallen 
apart.  The  prophets  do  not  acknowledge  the  priestly  ordin- 
ances of  their  day  as  a  part  of  Jehovah's  commandments  to 
Israel.  The  priests,  they  say,  have  forgotten  or  perverted  the 
Torah.  To  reconcile  the  prophets  and  the  priesthood,  to 
re-establish  conformity  between  the  practice  of  Israel's  wor- 
ship and  the  spiritual  teachings  of  the  prophets,  was  to  return 
to  the  standpoint  of  Moses,  and  bring  back  the  Torah  to  its 
original  oneness.  Whether  this  was  done  by  bringing  to 
light  a  forgotten  Mosaic  book,  or  by  recasting  the  traditional 
and  consuetudinary  law  in  accordance  with  Mosaic  prin- 
ciples, is  a  question  purely  historical,  which  does  not  at  all 
affect  the  legitimacy  of  the  work. 

It  is  always  for  the  interest  of  truth  to  discuss  historical 
questions  by  purely  historical  methods,  without  allowing 
theological  questions  to  come  in  till  the  historical  analysis  is 
complete.  This,  indeed,  is  the  chief  reason  why  scholars 
indifferent  to  the  religious  value  of  the  Bible  have  often  done 
good  service  by  their  philological  and  historical  studies.  For 
though  no  one  can  thoroughly  understand  the  Bible  without 
spiritual  sympathy,  our  spiritual  sympathies  are  commonly 
bound  up  with  theological  prejudices  which  have  no  real 
basis  in  Scripture ;  and  it  is  a  wholesome  exercise  to  see  how 
the  Bible  history  presents  itself  to  men  who  approach  the 
Bible  from  an  altogether  different  point  of  view.  It  is  easier 
to  correct  the  errors  of  a  rationalism  with  which  we  have  no 
sympathy,  than  to  lay  aside  prejudices  deeply  interwoven 
with  our  most  cherished  and  truest  convictions. 

In  strict  method,  then,  we  ought  now  to  prosecute  the 
question  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  by  the  ordinary 
rules  of  historical  inquiry ;  and  only  when  a  result  has  been 


THE    LAW  315 


reached  sliould  we  pause  to  consider  the  theological  bearings 
of  what  we  have  learned.  But  we  have  all  been  so  much 
accustomed  to  look  at  the  subject  from  a  dogmatical  point 
of  view,  that  a  few  remarks  at  this  stage  on  the  theological 
aspect  of  the  problem  may  be  useful  in  clearing  the  path  of 
critical  investigation. 

Christian  theology  is  interested  in  the  Law  as  a  stage  in 
the  dispensation  of  God's  purpose  of  grace.  As  such  it  is 
acknowledged  by  our  Lord,  who,  though  He  came  to  super- 
sede the  Law^,  did  so  only  by  fulfilling  it,  or,  more  accurately, 
by  filling  it  up,  and  supplying  in  actual  substance  the  good 
things  of  which  the  Law  presented  only  a  shadow  and 
unsubstantial  form.  The  Law,  according  to  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  was  weak  and  unprofitable  ;  it  carried  nothing 
to  its  goal,  and  must  give  way  to  a  better  hope,  by  which  we 
draw  near  to  God  (Heb.  vii.  18, 19).  The  Law  on  this  view 
never  actually  supplied  the  religious  needs  of  Israel ;  it  served 
only  to  direct  the  religious  attitude  of  the  people,  to  prevent 
them  from  turning  aside  into  devious  paths  and  looking  for 
God's  help  in  ways  that  might  tempt  them  to  forget  His 
spiritual  nature  and  fall  back  into  heathenism.  For  this 
purpose  the  Law  presents  an  artificial  system  of  sanctity, 
radiating  from  the  sanctuary  and  extending  to  all  parts  of 
Israel's  life.  The  type  of  religion  maintained  by  such  a 
system  is  certainly  inferior  to  the  religion  of  the  prophets, 
which  is  a  thing  not  of  form  but  of  spirit.  But  the  religion 
of  the  prophets  could  not  become  the  type  of  national  religion 
until  Jehovah's  spirit  rested  on  all  His  people,  and  the  know- 
ledge of  Him  dwelt  in  every  heart.  This  was  not  the  case 
under  the  old  dispensation.  The  time  to  which  Jeremiah 
and  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.,  look  forward,  when  the  prophetic  word 
shall  be  as  it  were  incarnate  in  a  regenerate  nation,  did  not 
succeed  the  restoration  from  Babylon.  On  the  contrary,  the 
old  prophetic  converse  of  Jehovah  with  His  people  flagged 


316  FUXCTIOX    OF 


and  soon  died  out,  and  the  word  of  Jehovah,  which  in  old 
days  had  been  a  present  reality,  became  a  memory  of  the  past 
and  a  hope  for  the  future.  It  was  under  these  circumstances 
that  the  dispensation  of  the  Law  became  a  practical  power  in 
Israel.  It  did  not  bring  Israel  into  such  direct  converse  with 
Jehovah  as  prophecy  had  done.  But  for  the  mass  of  the 
people  it  nevertheless  formed  a  distinct  step  in  advance ;  for 
it  put  an  end  to  the  anomalous  state  of  things  in  which 
practical  heathenism  had  filled  the  state,  and  the  prophets 
preached  to  deaf  ears.  The  legal  ritual  did  not  satisfy  the 
highest  spiritual  needs,  but  it  practically  extinguished  idolatry. 
It  gave  palpable  expression  to  the  spiritual  nature  of  Jehovah, 
and,  around  and  within  the  ritual,  prophetic  truths  gained  a 
hold  of  Israel  such  as  they  had  never  had  before.  The  Book 
of  Psalms  is  the  proof  how  much  of  the  highest  religious 
truth,  derived  not  from  the  Law  but  from  the  Prophets,  dwelt 
in  the  heart  of  the  nation,  and  gave  spiritual  substance  to  the 
barren  forms  of  the  ritual. 

These  facts,  quite  apart  from  any  theory  as  to  the  age  and 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  vindicate  for  the  Law  the  posi- 
tion which  it  holds  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  in  Christian 
theology.  That  the  Law  was  a  divine  institution,  that  it 
formed  an  actual  part  in  the  gracious  scheme  of  guidance 
which  preserved  the  religion  of  Jehovah  as  a  living  power  in 
Israel  till  shadow  became  substance  in  the  manifestation  of 
Christ,  is  no  theory  but  an  historical  fact,  which  no  criticism 
as  to  the  origin  of  the  books  of  Moses  can  in  the  least  degree 
invalidate.  On  the  other  hand,  the  work  of  the  Law,  as  we 
have  now  viewed  it,  was  essentially  subsidiary.  As  S.  Paul 
puts  it  in  Rom.  v.  20,  the  Law  came  in  from  the  side  (vo/xos 
8e  7rap€L(TrjX9ev).  It  did  not  lie  in  the  right  line  of  direct 
development,  which,  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  points  out, 
leads  straight  from  Jeremiah's  conception  of  the  New  Covenant 
to  the  fulfilment  in  Christ.     Once  more  we  are  thrown  back 


LEOT.  XI  THE    LAW  317 

on  S.  Paul's  explanation.  The  Law  was  but  a  pedagogue,  a 
servant  to  accompany  a  schoolboy  in  the  streets,  and  lead  him 
to  the  appointed  meeting  with  his  true  teacher. 

This  explanation  of  the  function  of  the  Law  is  that  of  the 
Xew  Testament,  and  it  fits  in  with  all  the  historical  facts  that 
we  have  had  before  us.  But  current  theology,  instead  of 
recognising  the  historical  proof  of  the  divine  purpose  of  the 
Law,  is  inclined  to  stake  everything  on  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  whole  system.  If  the  Law  is  not  written  by  Moses,  it 
cannot  be  part  of  the  record  of  revelation.  But  if  it  could  be 
proved  that  Moses  wrote  the  Law,  what  would  that  add  to 
the  proof  that  its  origin  is  from  God  ?  It  is  not  true  as  a 
matter  of  history  that  Pentateuch  criticism  is  the  source  of 
doubts  as  to  the  right  of  the  Law  to  be  regarded  as  a  divine 
dispensation.  The  older  sceptics,  who  believed  that  Moses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch,  attacked  the  divine  legation  of  Moses 
with  many  arguments  which  criticism  has  deprived  of  all 
force.  You  cannot  prove  a  book  to  be  God's  word  by  showing 
that  it  is  of  a  certain  age.  The  proof  of  God's  word  is  that 
it  does  His  work  in  the  world,  and  carries  on  His  truth 
towards  the  final  revelation  in  Christ  Jesus.  This  proof  the 
Pentateuch  can  adduce,  but  only  for  the  time  subsequent  to 
Ezra.  In  reality,  to  insist  that  the  whole  Law  is  the  work  of 
Moses  is  to  interpose  a  most  serious  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
its  recognition  as  a  divine  dispensation.  Before  the  Exile  the 
law  of  ceremonies  was  not  an  effectual  means  to  prevent 
defection  in  Israel,  and  Jehovah  Himself  never  dispensed  His 
grace  according  to  its  provisions.  Is  it  possible  that  He  laid 
down  in  the  wilderness,  with  sanctions  the  most  solemn,  and 
with  a  precision  which  admitted  no  exception,  an  order  of 
worship  and  ritual  which  has  no  further  part  in  Israel's 
history  for  well-nigh  a  thousand  years  ? 

But  I  do  not  urge  this  point.  I  do  not  desire  to  raise 
difficulties  against  the  common  view,  but  to  show  that  the 


318  THE    THREE    GKE AT  lect.  xr 

valid  and  sufficient  proof  that  the  Law  has  a  legitimate  place 
in  the  record  of  Old  Testament  revelation,  and  that  history 
assigns  to  it  the  same  place  as  it  claims  in  Christian  theology, 
is  derived  from  a  quarter  altogether  independent  of  the 
critical  question  as  to  the  authorship  and  composition  of  the 
Pentateuch.  This  being  premised,  we  can  turn  with  more 
composure  to  inquire  what  the  Pentateuch  itself  teaches  as  to 
its  composition  and  date. 

The  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  it,  is  not  a  formal  law-book, 
but  a  history  beginning  with  the  Creation  and  running  on 
continuously  into  the  Book  of  Joshua.  The  Law,  or  rather 
several  distinct  legal  collections,  are  inserted  in  the  historical 
context.  Confining  our  attention  to  the  main  elements,  we 
can  readily  distinguish  three  principal  groups  of  laws  or 
ritual  ordinances  in  addition  to  the  Ten  Commandments. 

I.  The  collection  Exod.  xxi.-xxiii.  This  is  an  independent 
body  of  laws,  with  a  title,  "  These  are  the  judgments  which 
thou  shalt  set  before  them,"  and  contains  a  very  simple  system 
of  civil  and  religious  polity,  adequate  to  the  wants  of  a 
primitive  agricultural  people.  I  shall  call  this  the  First 
Legislation.  In  its  religious  precepts  it  presents  a  close 
parallel  to  the  short  collection  of  ordinances  in  Exod.  xxxiv. 
11-26,  but  the  latter  contains  no  social  or  civil  statutes. 

II.  The  Law  of  Deuteronomy.  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy 
contains  a  good  deal  of  matter  rather  hortatory  than  legisla- 
tive. The  Deuteronomic  code  proper  begins  at  chap,  xii., 
with  the  title,  "  These  are  the  statutes  and  judgments  which 
ye  shall  observe  to  do,"  etc. ;  and  closes  with  the  subscription 
(Deut.  xxvi.  16  sq^),  "  This  day  Jehovah  thy  God  hath  com- 
manded thee  to  do  these  statutes  and  judgments,"  etc.  The 
Deuteronomic  Code,  as  we  may  call  Deut.  xii.-xxvi.,  is  not  a 
mere  supplement  to  the  First  Legislation.  It  is  an  inde- 
pendent reproduction  of  its  substance,  sometimes  merely 
repeating  the  older  laws,  but  at  other  times  extending  or 


GROUPS    OF   LAWS  319 


modifying  tliem.  It  covers  tlie  whole  ground  of  the  okl  law, 
except  one  verse  of  ritual  precept  (Exod.  xxiii.  18),  the  law 
of  treason  (Exod.  xxii.  28),  and  the  details  as  to  compensa- 
tions to  be  paid  for  various  injuries.  The  Deuteronomic  Code 
presupposes  a  regular  establishment  of  civil  judges  (Deut.  xvi. 
18),  and  the  details  of  compensation  in  civil  suits  might 
naturally  be  left  in  their  hands.^ 

III.  Quite  distinct  from  both  these  codes  is  the  Levitical 
Legislation,  or,  as  it  is  often  called,  the  Priests'  Code.     (The 

^  It  is  of  some  importance  to  realise  how  completely  Deuteronomy  covers 

the  same  ground  with  the  First  Legislation.     The  following  table  exhibits 

the  facts  of  the  case  : — 

Exod.   xxi.    1-11  (Hebrew  slaves)— Deut.  XV.  12-18. 

,,         ,,       12-14  (Murder  and  asylum) — Deut.  xix.  1-13. 

„         ,,       15,  17  (Oflences  against  parents) — Deut.  xxi.  18-21. 

,,         „       16  (Manstealing) — Deut.  xxiv.  7. 

„         ,,       18-x:xii.  15.     Compensations  to  be  paid  for  various  injuries.'    This  section  is 

not  repeated  in  Deuteronomy,  except  as  regards  the  law  of  retaliation, 

Exod.  xxi.  23-25,  which  in  Deut.  xix.  16-21  is  applied  to  false  witnesses. 

Exod.  xxii.    16,  17  (Seduction)— Deut.  xxii.  28,  29. 

,,       18  (Witch)— Deut.  xviii.  10-12. 

„         ,,       19— Deut.  xxvii.  21. 

„         ,,       20  (Worship  of  other  gods)— Deut.  xvii.  2-7. 

„         ,,       21-24  (Humanity  to  stranger,  widow,  and  orphan)— Deut.  xxiv.  17-22. 

.,         „       25  (Usury)— Deut.  xxiii.  19. 

„         ,,      26,  27  (Pledge  of  raiment)— Deut.  xxiv.  10-13. 

„         „       28  (Treason) — Not  in  Deuteronomy. 

,,         „       29,  30  (First  fruits  and  firstlings)— Deut.  xxvi.  1-11,  xv.  19-23. 

„         „       31  (Unclean  food)— Deut.  xiv.  2-21.    The  particular  precept  of  Exodus  occupies 

only  ver.  21 ;  but  the  principle  of  avoiding  food  inconsistent  with  holiness 

is  expanded. 

Exod.  xxiii.  1  (False  witness)— Deut.  xix.  16-21. 

2   3       "^ 
"         "      G  "'  Q   f  (Just  judgment)— Deut.  xvi.  18-20. 

,,         ,,  4,  5  (Animals  strayed  or  fallen) — Deut.  xxii.  1-i. 

,,         ,,  9  (repetition  of  xxii.  21) — Deut.  xxiv.  17-18. 

„         „  10-11 — (Sabbatical  year)— Deut.  xv.  1-11. 

„         ,,  12  (Sabbath  as  a  provision  of  humanity) — Deut.  v.  14,  15.     [Not  in  the  Code 

proper.] 

,,         ,,  13  (Names  of  other  gods) — Deut.  vi.  13. 

„         ,,  14-17  (Annual  feasts) — Deut.  xvi.  1-17. 

„         ,,  IS  (Leaven  in  sacrifice)— Not  in  Deuteronomy. 

„  19  (First  fruits)— Deut.  xxvi.  2-10. 

„         ,,  19  b  (Kid  in  mother's  milk) — Deut.  xiv.  21. 

The  parallel  becomes  still  more  complete  when  we  observe  that  to  the 
Code  of  Deuteronomy  is  prefixed  an  introduction,  iv.  44-xi.  32,  containing 
the  Ten  Commandments,  and  so  answering  to  Exod.  xx.  A  good  table,  follow- 
ing the  order  of  Deuteronomy,  and  giving  also  the  parallels  from  Exod.  xxxiv. 
and  from  the  priestly  Code  or  Levitical  Legislation,  Avill  be  found  in  Driver, 
Introduction,  p.  68  sqq. 


320  LAWS    IN  LECT.  XI 

latter  term,  however,  as  generally  used,  includes  those  parts 
of  the  Pentateuchal  history  to  which  a  common  origin  with 
the  Levitical  Legislation  is  ascribed  by  critics.)  The  Levitical 
ordinances,  including  directions  for  the  equipment  of  the 
sanctuary  and  priesthood,  sacrificial  laws,  and  the  whole 
system  of  threefold  sanctity  in  priests,  Levites,  and  people, 
are  scattered  through  several  parts  of  Exodus  and  the  Books 
of  Leviticus  and  isTumbers.  They  do  not  form  a  compact 
code  ;  but,  as  a  whole,  they  are  clearly  marked  off  from  both 
the  other  legislations,  and  might  be  removed  from  the  Penta- 
teuch without  making  the  rest  unintelligible.  The  First 
Legislation  and  the  Code  of  Deuteronomy  take  the  land  of 
Canaan  as  their  basis.  They  give  directions  for  the  life  of 
Jehovah's  people  in  the  land  He  gives  them.  The  Levitical 
Legislation  starts  from  the  sanctuary  and  the  priesthood.  Its 
object  is  to  develop  the  theory  of  a  religious  life  which  has 
its  centre  in  the  sanctuary,  and  is  ruled  by  principles  of 
holiness  radiating  forth  from  Jehovah's  dwelling-place.  The 
first  two  Legislations  deal  with  Israel  as  a  nation;  in  the 
third  Israel  is  a  church,  and  as  such  is  habitually  addressed 
as  a  "congregation"  Qedali),  a  word  characteristic  of  the 
Priests'  Code. 

These  three  bodies  of  law  are,  in  a  certain  sense,  inde- 
pendent of  the  historical  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
which  they  now  occur.  For  the  first  two  Legislations  this 
is  quite  plain.  They  are  formal  codes  which  may  very  well 
have  existed  as  separate  law-books  before  they  were  taken  up 
into  the  extant  history.  The  Levitical  Legislation  seems  at 
first  sight  to  stand  on  a  different  footing.  Individual  portions 
of  it,  such  as  the  chapters  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  Levi- 
ticus, have  a  purely  legal  form;  but  a  great  part  of  the 
ordinances  of  law  or  ritual  takes  the  shape  of  narrative. 
Thus,  the  law  for  the  consecration  of  priests  is  given  in  a 
narrative  of  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons.      The 


LECT.  XI  NARRATIVE    FORM  321 

form  is  historical,  but  the  essential  object  is  legal,  the 
ceremonies    observed    at   Aaron's   consecration    constituting 

o 

an  authoritative  precedent  for  future  ages.  There  is  nothing 
surprising  in  this.  Among  the  Arabs,  to  this  day,  traditional 
precedents  are  the  essence  of  law,  and  the  Cadi  of  the  Arabs 
is  he  who  has  inherited  a  knowledge  of  them.  Among  early 
nations  precedent  is  particularly  regarded  in  matters  of  ritual ; 
and  the  oral  Torah  of  the  priests  doubtless  consisted,  in  great 
measure,  of  case  law.  But  law  of  this  kind  is  still  essentially 
law,  not  history.  It  is  preserved,  not  as  a  record  of  the  past, 
but  as  a  guide  for  the  present  and  the  future.  The  Penta- 
teuch itself  shows  clearly  that  this  law  in  historical  form 
is  not  an  integral  part  of  the  continuous  history  of  Israel's 
movements  in  tlie  wilderness,  but  a  separate  thing.  For  in 
Exodus  xxxiii.  7,  which  is  non-Levitical,  we  read  that  Moses 
took  the  tabernacle  and  pitched  it  outside  the  camp,  and 
called  it  the  tent  of  meeting.  But  the  Levitical  account  of 
the  setting  up  of  the  tabernacle,  which  is  accompanied  with 
precise  details  as  to  the  arrangements  of  the  sanctuary,  so  as 
to  furnisli  a  complete  pattern  for  the  ordering  of  the  sacred 
furniture  in  future  ages,  does  not  occur  till  chap.  xl.  (comp. 
Num.  ix.  15).  Again,  in  Numbers  x.  we  have  first  the  Levi- 
tical account  of  the  fixed  order  of  march  of  the  Israelites  from 
Sinai  with  the  ark  in  the  midst  of  the  host  (verses  11-28),  and 
immediately  afterwards  the  historical  statement  that  when 
the  Israelites  left  Sinai  the  ark  was  not  in  their  midst  but 
went  before  them  a  distance  of  three  days'  journey  (verses  33- 
36).-^     It  is  plain  that  though  the  formal  order  of  march  with 

^  According  to  ExoJ.  xxxiii.  7,  Num.  x.  33,  the  sanctuary  is  outside  the 
camp  and  at  some  considerable  distance  from  it,  both  when  the  people  are  at 
rest  and  when  they  are  on  the  march.  That  the  ark  precedes  the  host  is 
im])lied  in  Exod.  xxiii.  20,  xxxii.  34  ;  Deut.  i.  33.  The  same  order  of  march 
is  found  in  Joshua  iii.  3,  4,  where  the  distance  between  the  ark  and  the  host 
is  2000  cubits,  and  the  reason  of  this  arrangement,  as  in  Num.  I.  c,  is  that 
the  ark  is  Israel's  guide.  (Comp.  Isa.  Ixiii.  11  sq.)  That  the  sanctuary 
stood  outside  the  camp  is  implied  also  in  Num.  xi.   24  sq.,  xii.   4.      This 

21 


322  LAWS    IN 


the  ark  in  the  centre,  which  the  author  sets  forth  as  a  standinG: 
pattern,  is  here  described  in  the  historical  guise  of  a  record  of 
the  departure  of  Israel  from  Sinai,  the  actual  order  of  march 
on  that  occasion  was  different.  The  same  author  cannot  have 
written  both  accounts.  One  is  a  law  in  narrative  form  ;  the 
other  is  actual  history.  These  examples  are  forcible  enough, 
but  they  form  only  a  fragment  of  a  great  chain  of  evidence 
which  critics  have  collected.  By  many  marks,  and  particularly 
by  extremely  well-defined  peculiarities  of  language,  a  Levitical 
document  can  be  separated  out  from  the  Pentateuch,  containing 
the  whole  mass  of  priestly  legislation  and  precedents,  and  leav- 
ing untouched  the  essentially  historical  part  of  the  Pentateuch, 
all  that  has  for  its  direct  aim  to  tell  us  what  befell  the  Israelites 
in  the  wilderness,  and  not  what  precedents  the  wilderness 
offered  for  subsequent  ritual  observances.  The  hand  that 
penned  the  Levitical  legislation  can  be  traced  even  in  the  Book 
of  Genesis,  for  the  plan  of  exhibiting  the  laws  of  Israel  as  far 
as  possible  in  the  form  of  precedents  made  it  necessary  to  go 
back  to  Abraham  for  the  institution  of  circumcision  (Gen. 
xvii.),  to  Noah  for  the  so-called  Noachic  ordinances  (Gen.  ix. 
1-17),  and  to  the  Creation  itself  for  the  law  of  the  Sabbath 
(Gen.  ii.  1-3).  Accordingly  the  Priests'  Code  takes  formally 
the  shape  of  a  continuous  history  of  divine  institution  from 
the  Creation  downwards.  Of  course  this  continuity  could  only 
be  attained  by  introducing  a  good  deal  of  matter  that  has  no 
direct  legal  bearing ;  but  the  legal  interest  always  predomi- 

<3orresponds  with  the  usage  of  the  early  sanctuaries  in  Canaan,  which  stood  on 
high  points  outside  the  cities  (1  Sam.  ix.  14,  25).  So  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem 
originally  stood  outside  the  city  of  David,  which  occupied  the  lower  slope  of 
the  Temple  hill  (comp.  Enc.  Brit,  9th  ed.,  articles  Jerusalem  and  Temple). 
But,  as  the  city  grew,  ordinary  buildings  encroached  on  the  Temple  plateau 
(Ezek.  xliii.  8).  This  appears  to  Ezekiel  to  be  derogatory  to  the  sanctity  of 
the  house  (comp.  Deut.  xxiii.  14),  and  is  the  reason  for  the  ordinance  set  forth 
in  symbolic  form  in  Ezek.  xlv.  1  sq.,  xlviii.,  where  the  sanctuary  stands  in 
the  middle  of  Israel,  but  isolated,  the  priests  and  the  Levites  lodging  between 
it  and  the  laity,  as  in  the  Levitical  law,  Num.  i.  -iii.  Here,  as  in  other  cases, 
the  Levitical  law  appears  as  the  latest  stage  of  the  historical  development. 


LECT.  XI  XARRATIVE  FORM  323 

nates,  and  those  parts  of  the  history  which  throw  no  light  on 
the  ordinances  of  the  Law  are  cut  as  short  as  possible  and 
often  are  reduced  to  mere  clironological  and  genealogical 
tables.  As  the  Pentateuch  now  stands,  this  quasi-history,  in 
which  the  narrative  of  events  is  strictly  subordinate  to  a  legal 
purpose,  and  the  real  history,  written  for  its  own  sake, 
are  intermingled,  not  only  in  the  same  book,  but  often  in  the 
same  chapter.     But  originally  they  were  quite  distinct.'^ 

The  Pentateuch,  then,  is  a  history  incorporating  at  least 
three  bodies  of  law.  The  history  does  not  profess  to  be 
written  by  Moses,  but  only  notes  from  time  to  time  that  he 
wrote  down  certain  special  things  (Exod.  xvii.  14,  xxiv.  4, 
xxxiv.  27 ;  Num.  xxxiii.  2  ;  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  22,  24).  These 
notices  of  what  Moses  himself  wrote  are  so  far  from  proving 
him  the  author  of  the  whole  Pentateuch  that  they  rather 
point   in   the   opposite   direction.      What  he  wrote  is  dis- 

1  Of  the  immense  literature  dealing  with  the  linguistic  and  other  marks 
bywhich  the  Levitical  document,  or  Priests'  Code,  may  be  separated  out,  it  is 
enough  to  refer  particularly  to  Noldeke,  Untersuchungeii  zur  Kritik  des  A.  T., 
Kiel,  1869  ;  "Wellhausen,  Comjwsition  des  Hexateuchs,  in  the  Jahrh.f.  D.  T., 
1876,  p.  392  sq.,  p.  531  sq. ;  1877,  p.  407  sq.  (reprinted  in  his  Skizzen,  etc.,  Hft. 
ii.,  1885,  and  again  in  Comp.  des  Hex.  und  der  liistor.  Bilcher,  1889),  and 
many  important  articles  by  Kuenen  in  the  Theologisch  Tijdschrift.  Kuenen's 
results  are  summed  up  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Onderzoek,  vol.  i.  1  (of 
which  there  is  an  English  translation).  The  best  account  of  the  matter  by  an 
English  scholar  is  that  in  Driver's  Introduction.  For  the  Book  of  Genesis 
the  contents  of  the  Priestly  Code  (generally  referred  to  as  P)  are  most  con- 
veniently exhibited  (in  a  German  translation)  in  Kautzsch  and  Socin's  Genesis 
(2d  ed.,  1891),  where  the  ancient  narratives  incorporated  in  the  Pentateuch 
are  all  printed  iu  different  types.  In  Genesis  the  separation  of  P  can  be 
effected  with  great  precision,  and  there  are  very  few  verses  about  which  critics 
of  every  school  are  not  agreed.  For  P's  contributions  to  the  other  ])arts  of 
the  Pentateuch  the  reader  may  consult  the  tables  in  Driver's  Introduction. 
The  chief  passages  of  legal  importance  are  Exod.  xii.  1-20,  43-51  ;  xiii.  1,  2  ; 
XXV.  1-xxxi.  17  ;  xxxv.  -xl. ;  the  Book  of  Leviticus  as  a  whole  (but  here  chapters 
xvii.-xxvi.,  the  so-called  Law  of  Holiness,  form  a  separate  section,  akin  to 
the  mass  of  the  Priests'  Code,  but  with  certain  peculiarities) ;  Num.  i.  1-x. 
28  ;  XV.  ;  part  of  xvi. ;  xvii.-xix. ;  xxv.  6-xxxi.  54  ;  xxxiv. -xxxvi.  For  the 
narrative  sections  of  P  see  Lecture  XIH. 

It  ought,  however,  to  be  observed  that  the  Levitical  laws,  though  all  of 
one  general  type  in  substance,  and  even  in  language,  do  not  appear  to  be  all 


324  THE    PENTATEUCH    WAS  lect.  xi 

tinguished  from  the  mass  of  the  text,  and  he  himself  is 
habitually  spoken  of  in  the  third  person.  It  is  common  to 
explain  this  as  a  literary  artifice  analogous  to  that  adopted 
by  Caesar  in  his  Commentaries.  But  it  is  a  strong  thing  to 
suppose  that  so  artificial  a  way  of  writing  is  as  old  as  Moses, 
and  belongs  to  the  earliest  age  of  Hebrew  authorship.  One 
asks  for  proof  that  any  Hebrew  ever  wrote  of  himself  in  the 
third  person,  and  particularly  that  Moses  would  write  such 
a  verse  as  Numbers  xii.  3,  "  The  man  Moses  was  very  meek 
above  all  men  living." 

The  idea  that  Moses  is  author  of  the  whole  Pentateuch, 
except  the  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  is  derived  from  the 
old  Jewish  theory,  which  we  found  in  Josephus  (suiora,  p. 
164),  that  every  leader  of  Israel  wrote  down  by  Divine 
authority  the  events  of  his  own  time,  so  that  the  sacred 
history  is  like  a  day-book  constantly  written  up  to  date.  No 
part  of  the  Bible  corresponds  to  this  description,  and  the 
Pentateuch  as  little  as  any.     For  example,  the  last  chapter 

of  one  date  and  by  one  hand.  A  good  deal  of  valuable  work  has  been  done  in 
the  way  of  separating  the  older  and  younger  elements  of  the  Levitical  legisla- 
tion ;  but  here,  as  will  readily  be  conceived,  the  temptation  to  push  conjecture 
beyond  the  limits  of  possible  verification  is  very  great.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  broad  lines  of  separation  between  this  legislation  and  the  other  codes  are 
very  clearly  marked  by  the  diversity  of  standpoint,  style,  and  language. 

A  good  example  of  the  fundamental  difference  in  legal  style  between  the 
Levitical  laws  and  the  Deuteronomic  Code  is  found  in  Num.  xxxv.  compared 
with  Deut.  xix.  In  Numbers,  the  technical  expression  city  of  refuge  is 
repeated  at  every  turn.  In  Deuteronomy  the  word  refuge  does  not  occur, 
and  the  cities  are  always  described  by  a  periphrasis.  In  Numbers  the  phrase 
for  "accidentally"  is  bish'gaga,  in  Deut.  bib'li  ddat.  The  judges  in  the  one 
are  "the  congregation,"  in  the  other  "the  elders  of  his  city."  The  verb  for 
hate  is  different.  The  one  account  says  again  and  again  "  to  kill  any  person," 
the  other  "to  kill  his  neighbour."  The  detailed  description  of  the  difference 
between  murder  and  accidental  homicide  is  entirely  diverse  in  language  and 
detail.  The  structure  of  the  sentences  is  distinct,  and  in  addition  to  all  this 
there  is  a  substantial  difference  in  the  laws  themselves,  inasmuch  as  Deuter- 
onomy says  nothing  about  remaining  in  the  city  of  refuge  till  the  death  of 
the  high  priest.  On  a  rough  calculation,  omitting  auxiliary  verbs,  particles, 
etc.,  Num.  xxxv.  11-34  contains  19  nouns  and  verbs  which  also  occur  in 
Deut.  xix.  2-13,  and  45  which  do  not  occur  in  the  parallel  passage  ;  while  the 
law,  as  given  in  Deuteronomy,  has  50  such  words  not  in  the  law  of  Numbers. 


LECT.  XI  WEITTEN    IN    CANAAN  325 

of  Deuteronomy,  which  on  the  common  theory  is  a  note 
added  by  Joshua  to  the  work  in  which  Moses  had  carried 
down  the  history  till  just  before  his  death,  cannot  really  have 
been  written  till  after  Joshua  was  dead  and  gone.  For  it 
speaks  of  the  city  Dan.  Now  Dan  is  the  new  name  of  Laish, 
which  that  town  received  after  the  conquest  of  the  Danites 
in  the  age  of  the  Judges,  when  Moses's  grandson  became 
priest  of  their  idolatrous  sanctuary.  But  if  the  last  chapter 
of  Deuteronomy  is  not  contemporary  history,  what  is  the 
evidence  that  the  rest  of  that  book  is  so  ?  There  is  not  an 
atom  of  proof  that  the  hand  which  wrote  the  last  chapter  had 
no  sliare  in  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Pentateuch al  history  was  written 
in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  if  it  is  all  by  one  hand  it  was  not 
composed  before  the  period  of  the  kings.  Genesis  xxxvi.  31 
sq.  gives  a  list  of  kings  who  reigned  in  Edom  "  before  there 
reigned  a  king  of  the  children  of  Israel."  This  carries  us 
down  at  least  to  the  time  of  Saul ;  but  the  probable  meaning 
of  the  passage  is  that  these  kings  ruled  before  Edom  was 
subject  to  an  Israelite  monarch,  which  brings  us  to  David  at 
any  rate.  Of  course  this  conclusion  may  be  evaded  by  saying 
that  certain  verses  or  chapters  are  late  additions,  that  the  list 
of  Edomite  kings,  and  such  references  to  the  conquest  of 
Canaan  as  are  found  in  Deut.  ii.  12,  iv.  38,  are  insertions  of 
Ezra  or  another  editor.  This  might  be  a  fair  enough  thing 
to  say  if  any  positive  proof  were  forthcoming  that  Moses 
wrote  the  mass  of  the  Pentateuch ;  but  in  the  absence  of 
such  proof  no  one  has  a  right  to  call  a  passage  the  insertion 
of  an  editor  without  internal  evidence  that  it  is  in  a  different 
style  or  breaks  the  context.  And  as  soon  as  we  come  to  this 
point  we  must  apply  tlie  method  consistently,  and  let  internal 
evidence  tell  its  whole  story.  That,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  is 
a  good  deal  more  than  those  who  raise  this  potent  spirit  are 
willing  to  hear. 


326  THE    PENTATEUCH   WAS  lect.  xi 

The  proof  that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  in  Canaan 
does  not  turn  on  mere  isolated  texts  which  can  be  separated 
from  the  context.  It  lies  equally  in  usages  of  language  that 
cannot  be  due  to  an  editor.  There  has  been  a  great  contro- 
versy about  Deut.  i.  1  and  other  similar  passages,  where  the 
land  east  of  the  Jordan  is  said  to  be  across  Jordan,  proving 
that  the  writer  lived  in  Western  Palestine.  That  this  is  the 
natural  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word  no  one  can  doubt,  but  we 
have  elaborate  aro'uments  that  Hebrew  was  such  an  elastic 
language  that  the  phrase  can  equally  mean  "on  this  side 
Jordan,"  as  the  English  Version  has  it.  The  point  is  practi- 
cally of  no  consequence,  for  there  are  other  phrases  which 
prove  quite  unambiguously  that  the  Pentateuch  was  written 
in  Canaan.  In  Hebrew  the  common  phrase  for  "  westward  " 
is  "  seaward,"  and  for  southward  "  towards  the  Negeb."  The 
word  Negeb,  which  primarily  means  "parched  land,"  is  in 
Hebrew  the  proper  name  of  the  dry  steppe  district  in  the 
south  of  Judah.  These  expressions  for  west  and  south  could 
only  be  formed  within  Palestine.  Yet  they  are  used  in  the 
Pentateuch,  not  only  in  the  narrative  but  in  the  Sinaitic 
ordinance  for  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness  (Exod.  xxvii.). 
But  at  Mount  Sinai  the  sea  did  not  lie  to  the  west,  and  the 
Negeb  was  to  the  north.  Moses  could  no  more  call  the  south 
side  the  Negeb  side  of  the  tabernacle  than  a  Glasgow  mau 
could  say  that  the  sun  set  over  Edinburgh.  The  answer  at- 
tempted to  this  is  that  the  Hebrews  might  have  adopted  these 
phrases  in  patriarchal  times,  and  never  given  them  up  in  the 
ensuing  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  ;  but  that  is  nonsense. 
AVhen  a  man  says  "towards  the  sea"  he  means  it.  The 
Egyptian  Arabs  say  seaward  for  northward,  and  so  the 
Israelites  must  have  done  when  they  were  in  Egypt.  To 
an  Arab  in  Western  Arabia,  on  the  contrary,  seaward  means 
towards  the  Eed  Sea.  Again,  the  Pentateuch  displays  an 
exact  topographical  knowledge  of  Palestine,  but  by  no  means 


LECT.  XI  WRITTEN    IN  CANAAN  327 

SO  exact  a  knowledge  of  the  wilderness  of  the  wandering. 
The  narrative  has  the  names  of  the  places  famous  in  the 
forty  years'  wandering  ;  but  for  Canaan  it  gives  local  details, 
and  describes  them  with  exactitude  as  they  were  in  later 
times  (e.g.  Gen.  xii.  8,  xxxiii.  18,  xxxv.  19,  20).  Accordingly, 
the  patriarchal  sites  can  still  be  set  down  on  the  map  witli 
definiteness  ;  but  geographers  are  unable  to  assign  with 
certainty  the  site  of  Mount  Sinai,  because  the  narrative  has 
none  of  that  topographical  colour  which  the  story  of  an  eye- 
witness is  sure  to  possess.  Once  more,  the  Pentateuch  cites 
as  authorities  poetical  records  which  are  not  earlier  than  the 
time  of  Moses.  One  of  these  records  is  a  book,  the  Book  of 
the  Wars  of  Jehovah  (Num.  xxi.  14)  ;  did  Moses,  writing 
contemporary  history,  find  and  cite  a  book  already  current, 
containing  poetry  on  the  wars  of  Jehovah  and  His  people, 
which  began  in  his  own  times  ?  Another  poetical  authority 
cited  is  a  poem  circulating  among  the  Moshelim  or  reciters  of 
sarcastic  verses  (Num.  xxi.  27  sq.).  It  refers  to  the  victory 
over  Sihon,  which  took  place  at  the  very  end  of  the  forty 
years'  wandering.  If  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  wliat  oc- 
casion could  he  have  to  authenticate  his  narrative  by  reference 
to  these  traditional  depositaries  of  ancient  poetry  ? 

The  Pentateuch,  then,  was  not  written  in  the  wilderness  ; 
but  moreover  it  is  not,  even  in  its  narrative  parts,  a  single 
continuous  work,  but  a  combination  of  several  narratives 
originally  independent.  The  first  key  to  the  complex  struc- 
ture of  the  history  was  found  in  the  use  of  the  names  of  God 
in  Genesis.  Some  parts  of  Genesis  habitually  speak  of 
Jehovah,  others  as  regularly  use  the  word  Elohim  ;  and  as 
early  as  1753  the  French  physician  Astruc  showed  that  if 
the  text  of  Genesis  be  divided  into  two  columns,  all  the 
Elohim  passages  standing  on  one  side,  and  the  Jehovah 
passages  on  the  other,  we  get  two  parallel  narratives  which 
are  still  practically  independent.      Tliis  of  course   was  no 


328  COMPOUND    NARRATIVES  lect.  xi 

more  than  a  hint  for  further  investigation.  In  reality  there 
are  two  independent  documents  in  Genesis  which  use  Elohim, 
the  second  and  younger  of  these  being  in  fact  the  historical 
introduction  to  the  Levitical  Legislation,  or  Priests'  Code.  A 
third  document  uses  Jehovah,  and  the  process  by  which  the 
three  were  finally  interwoven  into  one  book  is  somewhat 
difficult  to  follow.  Astruc  supposed  that  these  documents 
were  all  older  than  Moses,  and  that  he  was  the  final  editor. 
But  later  critics  have  shown  that  the  same  documents  can  be 
traced  through  the  whole  Pentateuch,  and  even  to  the  end  of 
the  Book  of  Joshua.  To  prove  this  in  detail  would  occupy 
several  lectures.  I  can  only  give  one  or  two  illustrations  to 
prove  that  these  results  are  not  imaginary. 

A  modern  writer,  making  a  history  with  the  aid  of  older 
records,  masters  their  contents  and  then  writes  a  wholly  new 
book.  That  is  not  the  way  of  Eastern  historians.  If  we  take 
up  the  great  Arabic  historians  we  often  find  passages  occur- 
ring almost  word  for  word  in  each.  All  use  directly  or  in- 
directly the  same  sources,  and  copy  these  sources  verbally  as 
far  as  is  consistent  with  the  scope  and  scale  of  their  several 
works.  Thus  a  comparatively  modern  book  has  often  the 
freshness  and  full  colour  of  a  contemporary  narrative,  and 
we  can  still  separate  out  the  old  sources  from  their  modern 
setting.  So  it  is  in  the  Bible,  as  we  have  already  seen  in  the 
case  of  the  Books  of  Kings.  It  is  this  way  of  writing  that 
makes  the  Bible  history  so  vivid  and  interesting,  in  spite  of 
its  extraordinary  brevity  in  comparison  with  the  vast  periods 
of  time  that  it  covers.  Think  only  what  a  mass  of  veracious 
detail  we  were  able  to  gather  in  Lecture  IX.  for  the  state  of 
ritual  in  ancient  Israel.  No  compend  on  the  same  scale 
written  on  modern  principles  could  have  preserved  so  much 
of  the  genuine  life  of  antique  times.  It  stands  to  reason  that 
the  Pentateuch  should  exhibit  the  same  features ;  and  the 
superciliousness  with  which  traditionalists  declare  the  labours 


LECT.  XI  m    THE    PENTATEUCH  329 

of  the  critics  to  be  visionary  is  merely  the  contempt  of  ignor- 
ance, which  has  never  handled  old  Eastern  histories,  and  judges 
everything  from  a  Western  and  modern  standpoint. 

Every  one  can  see  that,  when  we  have  this  general  key  to 
the  method  of  ancient  Eastern  historians,  it  is  quite  a  practical 
undertaking  to  try  to  separate  the  sources  from  which  a 
Hebrew  author  worked.  It  will  not  always  be  possible  to 
carry  the  analysis  out  fully ;  but  it  is  no  hopeless  task  to 
distribute  the  main  masses  of  the  story  between  the  several 
authors  whose  books  he  used.  Marked  peculiarities  of 
language,  of  which  the  use  of  the  names  of  God  is  the  most 
celebrated  but  not  the  most  conclusive,  are  a  great  help  ;  and 
along  with  these  a  multitude  of  other  indications  come  in,  as 
the  analysis  proceeds. 

A  very  clear  case  is  the  account  of  the  Flood.  As  it  now 
stands  the  narrative  has  the  most  singular  repetitions,  and 
things  come  in  in  the  strangest  order.  But  as  soon  as  we 
separate  the  Jehovah  and  Elohim  documents  all  is  clear. 
The  first  narrative  tells  that  Jehovah  saw  the  wickedness  of 
men  and  determined  to  destroy  them.  But  Noah  found  grace 
in  His  eyes,  and  was  called  to  enter  the  ark  with  a  pair  of  all 
unclean  beasts,  and  clean  beasts  and  fowls  by  sevens  ;  for,  he 
is  told,  after  seven  days  a  forty  days'  rain  will  ensue  and 
destroy  all  life.  Noah  obeys  the  command,  the  seven  days 
elapse,  and  the  rain  follows  as  predicted,  floating  the  ark  but 
destroying  all  outside  of  it.  Then  the  rain  ceases  and  the 
waters  sink.  Noah  opens  the  window  of  the  ark  and  sends 
out  the  raven,  which  flies  to  and  fro  till  the  earth  dries.  The 
dove  is  also  sent  forth,  but  soon  returns  to  the  ark.  Seven 
days  later  the  same  messenger  is  sent  forth,  and  returns  in  the 
evening  with  a  fresh  twig  of  olive.  Another  week  passes,  and 
then  the  dove,  sent  out  for  the  third  time,  does  not  return. 
Thereupon  Noah  removes  the  covering  of  the  ark,  finds  the 
ground  dry,  builds  an  altar  and  does  sacrifice,  receiving  the 


330  DOUBLE    NARRATIVE  lect.  xi 

promise  that  the  flood  shall  not  again  recur  and  disturb  the 
course  of  the  seasons.  The  parallel  Elohistic  narrative  (which 
in  this  case  belongs  to  the  younger  Elohistic  document,  i.e.  to 
the  narrative  framework  of  the  Priests'  Code)  is  equally  com- 
plete. It  also  relates  God's  anger  with  mankind.  Noah 
receives  orders  to  build  the  ark  and  take  in  the  animals  in 
pairs  (there  is  no  mention  of  the  sevens  of  clean  beasts). 
The  flood  begins  when  Noah  is  six  hundred  years  old.  The 
fountains  of  the  great  deep  are  broken  up,  and  the  windows 
of  heaven  opened ;  but  on  the  same  day  Noah,  his  family, 
and  the  pairs  of  animals  enter  the  ark.  The  waters  rise  till 
they  cover  the  hills,  and  swell  for  a  hundred  and  fifty  days, 
when  they  are  assuaged  by  a  great  wind,  and  the  fountains  of 
the  deep  and  the  windows  of  heaven  are  closed.  The  waters 
now  begin  to  fail,  and  just  five  months  after  the  flood  com- 
menced the  ark  rests  on  a  point  in  the  mountains  of  Ararat. 
The  waters  still  continue  to  decrease  for  two  months  and  a 
half,  till  the  tops  of  the  mountains  are  seen.  In  other  three 
months  the  face  of  the  earth  was  freed  of  water,  but  it  was 
not  till  the  lapse  of  a  full  solar  year  that  Noah  was  permitted 
to  leave  the  ark,  when  he  received  God's  blessing,  the  so-called 
Noachic  ordinances,  and  the  sign  of  the  bow.  These  two 
accounts  are  plainly  independent.  It  is  impossible  that  the 
work  of  one  author  could  so  divide  itself  into  two  complete 
narratives,  and  have  for  each  a  different  name  of  God.^ 

^  The  following  table  will  make  the  analysis  more  clear  : — 
Jehovist,  vi.  5-8  vii.  1-5  vii.  7-10  vii.  12 


Priestly  Elohist,                vi.  9-22                    vii.  6 

vii.  11 

J.                                                vii.  16  (last  clause),  17 

vii.  22,  23 

P.                           vii.  13-16 

except  the  last  clause. 

vii.  18-21 

J.                                                                  \iii.   2  &,  3  a 

viii.   6-12 

P.                          vii.  24,  viii.  1,  2  a 

viii.  3  &-5 

J.                                              viii.  13  h 

viii.  20-22 

P.  viii.  13  a  viii.  14-19  ix.  1-17 


LECT.  XI  OF    THE  FLOOD  331 

The  proof  that  the  same  variety  of  hands  runs  through  to 
the  end  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  woukl  carry  us  too  far,  and  is 
the  less  necessary  because  the  fact  will  hardly  be  denied  by 
those  who  admit  the  existence  of  separate  sources  in  the 
Pentateuch  at  all.  For  those  who  cannot  follow  the  details 
of  the  original  text  it  is  more  profitable  to  concentrate  atten- 
tion on  the  legal  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  What  has  been 
said  is  enough  to  show  that  the  Pentateuch  is  a  much  more 
complex  book  than  appears  at  first  sight,  and  that  in  its 
present  form  it  was  written  after  the  time  of  Moses,  nay,  after 
that  of  Joshua.  It  is  now  no  longer  permissible  to  insist  that 
the  reference  to  the  kingship  of  Israel  over  Edom  and  similar 
things  are  necessarily  isolated  phenomena.  We  cannot  venture 
to  assert  that  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  out  of  older 
sources  of  various  date  took  place  before  the  time  of  the  kings. 
How  much  of  it  is  early,  how  much  comparatively  late,  must 
be  determined  by  a  wider  inquiry,  and  for  this  the  laws  give 
the  best  starting-point. 

The  post-Mosaic  date  of  the  narrative  does  not  in  itself 
prove  that  the  laws  were  not  all  written  by  Moses.  Two  of 
our  three  legislative  Corjjora  are  independent  of  the  history. 
The  third  is  at  least  independent  of  the  main  thread  of  the 
narrative,  and  deals  with  history  only  for  legal  and  ritual 
purposes.  But  does  the  Pentateuch  represent  Moses  as  hav- 
ing written  the  legal  codes  which  it  embodies  ?  So  far  as  the 
ritual  of  the  Levitical  legislation  is  concerned,  we  can  answer 
this  question  at  once  with  a  decisive  negative.  It  is  nowhere 
said  that  Moses  wrote  down  the  description  of  the  tabernacle 
and  its  ordinances,  or  the  law  of  sacrifice.      And  in  many 

In  one  or  two  places  some  slight  modifications  seem  to  have  been  made  on 
the  narrative  of  J.  when  the  two  accounts  were  combined.  Thus  in  vii.  9 
the  distinction  proper  to  J.  between  the  sevens  of  clean  beasts  and  the  pairs 
of  beasts  not  clean  has  disappeared.  In  the  same  verse  the  Hebrew  text  has 
God  (Elohim)  where  we  expect  Jehovah,  but  Jehovah  was  certainly  the 
original  reading,  and  has  been  preserved  in  the  Samaritan  text,  in  the  Targum 
and  Vulgate,  and  in  some  MSS.  of  the  Septuagint. 


332  WHAT    LAWS    WERE  lect.  xi 

places  the  laws  of  this  legislation  are  expressly  set  forth  as 
oral.  Moses  is  commanded  to  speak  to  Aaron  or  to  the 
Israelites,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  communicate  to  them 
God's  will.  This  fact  is  significant  when  we  remember  that 
the  Torah  of  the  priests  referred  to  by  the  prophets  is  plainly 
oral  instruction.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Pentateuch  that 
does  not  confirm  the  prior  probability  that  ritual  law  was 
long  an  affair  of  practice  and  tradition,  resting  on  knowledge 
that  belonged  to  the  priestly  guild.  But  the  priests,  accord- 
ing to  Hosea,  forgot  the  Torah,  and  we  have  seen  that  neither 
at  Shiloh  nor  in  Jerusalem  did  the  ritual  law  exist  in  its 
present  form,  or  even  its  present  theory.  Thus  we  are  re- 
duced to  this  alternative  : — either  the  ritual  law  was  written 
down  by  the  priests  immediately  after  Moses  gave  it  to  them, 
or  at  least  in  the  first  years  of  residence  in  Canaan,  and  then 
completely  forgotten  by  them  ;  or  else  it  was  not  written  till 
long  after,  when  the  priests  who  forgot  the  law  were  chastised 
by  exile,  and  a  new  race  arose  which  accepted  the  rebukes  of 
the  prophets.  The  former  hypothesis  implies  that  a  book 
specially  meant  for  the  priests,  and  kept  in  their  custody, 
survived  many  centuries  of  total  neglect  and  frequent  re- 
movals of  the  sanctuary,  and  that  too  at  a  time  when  books 
were  written  in  such  a  way  that  damp  soon  made  them 
illegible.  Yet  the  text  of  this  book,  which,  the  priests  had 
forgotten,  is  much  more  perfect  than  that  of  the  Psalms  or 
the  Books  of  Samuel.  These  are  grave  difficulties  ;  and  they 
must  become  decisive  when  we  show  that  an  earlier  code, 
contradicting  the  Levitical  legislation  in  important  points,  was 
actually  current  in  ancient  times  as  the  divine  law  of  Israel. 
With  regard  to  the  other  two  bodies  of  law  the  case  is 
different.  In  Exod.  xxiv.  4-7  we  are  told  that  Moses  "  wrote 
all  the  words  of  Jehovah  "  which  had  been  communicated  to 
him  on  Mount  Sinai,  and  pledged  the  people  to  obey  them  in 
a  formal  covenant.     The  writing  to  which  the  people  were 


J 


LECT.  XI  WRITTEN    BY    MOSES  333 

thus  pledged  is  called  in  verse  7  the  Book  of  the  Covenant. 
There  has  been  some  dispute  as  to  what  this  Book  of  the 
Covenant  contained,  and  it  has  been  argued  that  a  distinction 
must  be  drawn  between  "  the  words  of  Jehovah  "  in  verse  4 
and  "  the  judgments  "  in  verse  3,  and  that  the  former  alone 
were  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  And  since  "  the 
judgments"  appear,  on  comparison  of  xxi.  1,  to  be  identical 
with  the  code  of  Exod.  xxi.-xxiii.,  it  has  been  inferred  that  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  consisted  only  of  the  Ten  Command- 
ments (Exod.  XX.  2-17).  This  view  certainly  appears  somewhat 
strained,  for  the  distinction  between  "  words "  and  "judg- 
ments" is  rather  imported  into  the  passage  than  naturally 
conveyed  by  it.  But  on  the  other  hand,  the  identification  of 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant  with  the  Decalogue  is  in  accordance 
with  Exod.  xxxiv.  27,  28,  where  the  words  of  Jehovah's 
covenant  with  Israel,  which  Moses  was  ordered  to  write  on 
the  tables  of  stone,  are  expressly  called  the  Ten  Words.  So 
also  in  Deut.  v.  2-22  the  Ten  Commandments  are  evidently 
set  forth  as  forming  the  whole  compass  of  the  covenant  at 
Horeb  (comp.  Deut.  ix.  9,  15  ;  1  Kings  viii.  9).  These  argu- 
ments appear  to  be  cogent,  if  we  may  take  it  for  granted  that 
all  the  accounts  of  the  covenant  at  Sinai  are  in  perfect  accord. 
It  will  then  appear  that  at  Sinai  no  other  laws  were  com- 
mitted to  writing  than  the  Ten  Commandments.  Nor  is  the 
lawgiver  recorded  to  have  written  down  any  further  ordin- 
ances during  the  wilderness  wanderings.  But  in  Deut.  xxxi. 
9,  24  the  account  of  Moses's  last  address  to  the  people  in  the 
plains  of  Moab  is  followed  by  the  statement  that  he  wrote 
"  the  words  of  this  law  "  in  a  book,  which  he  deposited  with 
the  Levites  to  be  preserved  beside  the  ark.  In  the  context, 
the  expression  "  this  law  "  can  only  mean  the  law  of  Deuter- 
onomy, which  is  often  so  called  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  the 
book  ;  it  cannot  possibly  mean  the  whole  Pentateuch.  Thus, 
on  the  assumption  that  there  is  no  discrepancy  or  uncertainty 


334  WHAT    LAWS    WERE  lect.  xi 

in  the  various  notices  contained  in  different  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch,  we  may  conclude  that,  in  addition  to  the  Ten 
Commandments  written  at  Sinai,  a  larger  body  of  laws, 
corresponding  to  the  Deuteronomic  code,  was  committed  to 
writing  by  Moses  just  before  his  death.  Even  so  it  would 
not  be  safe  to  assume  that  the  whole  law  of  Deuteronomy,  as 
it  is  contained  in  chaps,  xii.-xxvi.,  has  reached  us  in  the 
precise  words  that  Moses  wrote,  without  modification  or 
addition.  We  have  learned  in  earlier  parts  of  these  Lectures 
that  additions  were  made  in  the  course  of  ages  to  many 
portions  of  the  Bible.  But  of  all  books  a  code  of  laws, 
which  is  useless  if  it  is  not  kept  up  to  date,  is  most  likely 
to  receive  additions,  or  even  to  be  entirely  recast  to  meet  a 
change  in  social  conditions  ;  nor  would  the  consideration 
that  the  ordinances  of  Moses  had  divine  authority  prevent 
this  from  taking  place  in  a  nation  that  was  continually 
guided  by  the  priestly  oracle  and  the  prophetic  word,  and 
in  which  every  decision  of  the  judges  of  the  sacred  court  was 
accepted  as  a  decision  of  God  {mfpra,  p.  299).  The  testimony 
of  Deut.  xxxi.  cannot  therefore  dispense  us  from  inquiry 
whether  the  Deuteronomic  code  is  the  very  writing  of  Moses, 
or  a  more  modern  expansion  and  development  of  the  law 
given  on  the  plains  of  Moab,  which  retains  the  name  of 
Moses,  not  because  he  completed  the  legislative  system,  but 
because  he  laid  its  foundations. 

All  this  may  be  fairly  urged  even  on  the  assumption  that 
the  narrative  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  bear  a  single  unam- 
biguous testimony  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  Moses's  written 
laws.  But  a  candid  examination  compels  us  to  admit  that, 
while  all  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  are  unanimous  in  their 
witness  to  Moses  as  the  founder  of  the  Law,  the  details  of 
the  law-giving  are  involved  in  great  obscurity,  and  were 
evidently  represented  in  different  ways  by  the  various 
narrators  from  whose  accounts  the  Pentateuch  is  made  up. 


1 


LECT.  XI  WRITTEN  BY    MOSES  335 

111  short,  we  here  find  on  a  larger  scale  the  same  phenomenon 
that  we  have  already  met  with  in  the  story  of  tlie  Flood.  The 
extant  narrative  is  a  twisted  strand  combined  out  of  several 
narratives  diverse  the  one  from  the  other  not  only  in  form 
but  in  substance. 

First  of  all  let  us  note  that  the  assumption,  on  which  we 
have  hitherto  proceeded,  that  Exod.  xxiv.  3-7,  Exod.  xxxiv. 
27,  28,  and  Deut.  v.  2-22,  present  a  consistent  account  of  the 
Covenant  at  Sinai  will  not  bear  closer  examination.  The 
account  in  Deuteronomy  is  unambiguous ;  the  covenant 
consisted  only  of  the  Ten  Commandments  (in  Hebrew  the 
Ten  Words),  and  nothing  more  was  written  down  till  Moses 
was  about  to  die.  It  is  true  that  Deuteronomy  iv.  14,  v.  31 
give  us  to  understand  that  Moses  received  a  further  body  of 
laws  at  Horeb  ;  but  these,  as  we  are  expressly  told,  were  for 
use  in  Canaan  (iv.  14),  and  therefore  they  were  not  published 
till  the  people  stood  on  the  borders  of  the  promised  land 
(iv.  1  sqg[.).  Exodus  xxxiv.  agrees  with  this  in  so  far  as  it 
identifies  the  words  of  the  Covenant  with  the  Ten  Words 
written  on  the  two  tables  of  stone  ;  but,  while  Deuteronomy 
(v.  22,  X.  4)  is  quite  explicit  in  saying  that  the  tables  con- 
tained the  Ten  Commandments  of  Exod.  xx.  2-17,  Deut.  v. 
6-21,  the  Ten  Words  of  Exod.  xxxiv.  27,  28  are  necessarily 
the  words  found  in  verses  10-26  of  the  same  chapter,  i.e.  a 
series  of  laws  of  religious  observance  closely  corresponding 
to  the  religious  and  ritual  precepts  of  the  First  Legislation 
(Exod.  xxi.-xxiii.).  We  are  so  accustomed  to  look  on  the 
Ten  Words  written  on  the  tables  of  stone  as  the  very 
foundation-stone  of  the  Mosaic  law  that  it  is  hard  for  us 
to  realise  that  in  ancient  Israel  there  were  two  opinions  as 
to  what  these  Words  were ;  and,  for  my  own  part,  I  confess 
that  I  have  struggled  as  long  as  I  could  to  explain  the 
discrepancy  away.  But  the  thing  is  too  plain  to  be  denied, 
and  the  hypothesis  which  I  once  ventured  to  advance  that 


336  VARYING  ACCOUNTS    OF  lect.  xi 

Exod.  xxxiv.  10-26  may  have  got  out  of  its  true  place  at 
some  stage  in  the  redaction  of  the  Pentateuch  does  not  help 
matters.  For  in  any  case  it  would  still  have  to  be  admitted 
that  the  editor  to  whom  we  owe  the  present  form  of  the 
chapter  identified  this  little  code  of  religious  observances 
with  the  Ten  Words.  The  difficulty,  therefore,  would  still 
remain  the  same.-^ 

Now,  if  we  can  no  longer  regard  Deuteronomy  and  Exodus 
xxxiv.  as  giving  a  single  sound  on  the  matter  of  the  Sinaitic 
Covenant,  the  chief  reason  for  thinking  that  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  in  Exod.  xxiv.  is  identical  with  the  Decalogue 
falls  to  the  ground.  We  are  no  longer  entitled  to  draw  a 
strained  distinction  between  "the  words"  and  "the  judg- 
ments" in  order  to  maintain  the  harmony  between  all  the 
accounts ;  and  on  the  other  hand  we  observe  that  the  words 
which  Moses  received  and  wrote  (ver.  4)  can  hardly  be  the 
same  as  the  Decalogue  which  was  proclaimed  from  Sinai  in 
the  ears  of  all.  The  Decalogue  was  not  given  to  Moses  to 
be  written  from  memory,  but  was  written  on  the  Mount 
itself,  and  that,  too,  according  to  the  present  order  of  the 
narrative,  after  the  Covenant  had  been  written  and  ratified 
(xxiv.  12).  Thus  we  are  led,  after  all,  to  identify  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant  with  the  First  Legislation  (Exod.  xxi.-xxiv.), 
and  to  admit  that  the  Pentateuch  presents  three  divergent 
views  of  the  contents  of  the  Sinaitic  Covenant.^ 

^  The  hypothesis  of  a  displacement  in  Exod.  xxxiv. ,  which  I  put  forward 
in  the  Encyclopcedia  Britannica,  9th  ed.,  article  Decalogue  (1877),  was  inde- 
pendently worked  out  by  Kuenen  in  an  article  in  Theol  TijdscJirift,  xv.  (1881), 
p.  164  sqq.  He  regards  Exod.  xxxiv.  1,  4,  and  the  last  words  of  verse  28, 
as  belonging  to  a  different  document  from  xxxiv.  2,  3,  5,  10-27,  and  so  is  able 
to  maintain  that  the  Ten  Words  of  xxxiv.  28  are  the  same  as  the  Decalogue 
of  chap.  XX.  Wellhausen  has  criticised  this  view  in  the  latest  edition  of 
his  Composition  (1889),  p.  327  sqq..,  justly  remarking  that  in  that  case  the 
editor  who  gave  the  text  its  present  form  "has  introduced  the  most  serious 
internal  contradiction  found  in  the  Old  Testament." 

-  Any  one  who  carefully  reads  through  the  narrative  of  the  transactions  of 
Sinai  must  recognise  that  the  story  has  reached  us  in  a  very  confused  state. 
"After  the  proclamation  of  the  Decalogue  Moses  pays  a  first,  a  second,  and  a 


LECT.  XI  THE    SmAlTIC    COVENANT  337 

Such  being  the  state  of  the  extant  history  of  Moses's 
work,  it  is  not  only  legitimate  but  absolutely  necessary  to 
undertake  a  critical  examination  of  the  several  bodies  of 
laws,  in  the  hope  that  internal  evidence  may  do  something 
to  help  us  through  the  uncertainties  in  which  the  narrative 
of  the  law-giving  is  involved,  and  throw  light  on  the  question 
when  and  by  what  stages  the  divine  Torah,  of  which  Moses 
was  the  originator,  assumed  the  form  it  has  in  the  extant 
written  codes. 

Now  it  is  a  very  remarkable  fact,  to  begin  with,  that  all 
the  sacred  law  of  Israel  is  comprised  in  the  Pentateuch,  and 
that,  apart  from  the  Levitical  legislation,  it  is  presented  in 
codified  form.  On  the  traditional  view,  three  successive 
bodies  of  law  were  given  to  Israel  within  forty  years.  Within 
that  short  time   many  ordinances  were   modified,  and   the 

third  visit  to  Sinai,  always  with  the  same  object  of  receiving  laws.  It  is 
clear  that  when,  after  the  first  visit  (Exod.  xx.  21,  xxiv.  3),  all  the  words  and 
judgments  of  Jehovah  are  written  down  and  the  people  are  solemnly  pledged 
to  them,  this  must  have  originally  indicated  that  the  legislation  is  formally 
brought  to  a  close  (xxiv.  3-8) ;  but  as  the  story  now  stands  the  conclusion  of 
the  Covenant  is  a  mere  interlude.  For  scarcely  is  the  solemnity  over  when 
Moses  (with  Joshua)  again  goes  up  to  God  in  the  Mount,  and  remains  there  a 
long  time,  receiving  further  divine  communications,  doubtless  of  a  legal 
character.  Finall}'^,  in  chap,  xxxiv.  there  is  another  long  visit  to  Mount  Sinai, 
and  there  for  a  third  time  he  receives  words  and  writes  them  on  two  tables  of 
stone.  The  third  visit,  indeed,  is  explained  by  the  breaking  of  the  first  tables, 
which  have  to  be  renewed  ;  but  what  is  dictated  to  him  is  not  a  repetition  of 
the  old  matter  but  a  series  of  new  precepts."  Wellhausen,  Composition  (1889), 
p.  84  sq.     (The  whole  passage  should  be  read.) 

The  perplexities  of  Exod.  xix. -xxxiv.  have  made  these  chapters  the 
locus  desperatus  of  criticism.  It  is  easy  to  remove  the  priestly  additions 
(chaps,  xxv.-xxxi.  and  a  few  verses  elsewhere),  and  to  point  out  in  what 
remains  clear  indications  that  at  least  two  parallel  and  independent  narratives 
have  been  worked  into  a  single  tissue.  Thus  in  xix.  20  Jehovah  descends 
upon  Sinai,  but  in  the  previous  verses  he  is  already  there  ;  hence  xix.  3-19 
and  xix.  20-25  seem  originally  to  have  belonged  to  distinct  narratives,  though 
the  points  of  difference  have  been  softened  by  the  hand  of  the  redactor  {e.g^ 
by  the  insertion  of  verses  23,  24).  Again  xxiv.  1,  2  is  continued  in  verses 
9-11,  while  the  intervening  verses  belong  to  a  diflerent  context.  But  the 
whole  section  has  been  so  often  worked  over  by  editorial  hands,  touching  and 
retouching,  making  omissions,  additions,  and  transpositions,  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  separate  the  original  sources  with  the  certainty  and  precision 

22 


338  MOSAIC   AND 


whole  law  of  Sinai  recast  on  the  plains  of  Moab.  But  from 
the  days  of  Moses  there  was  no  change.  With  his  death 
the  Israelites  entered  on  a  new  career,  which  transformed 
the  nomads  of  Goshen  into  the  civilised  inhabitants  of  vine- 
yard land  and  cities  in  Canaan.  But  the  Divine  laws  given 
them  beyond  Jordan  were  to  remain  unmodified  through  all 
the  long  centuries  of  development  in  Canaan,  an  absolute 
and  immutable  code.  I  say,  with  all  reverence,  that  this  is 
impossible.  God  no  doubt  could  have  given,  by  Moses's 
mouth,  a  law  fit  for  the  age  of  Solomon  or  Hezekiah,  but 
such  a  law  could  not  be  fit  for  immediate  application  in  the 
days  of  Moses  and  Joshua.  Every  historical  lawyer  knows 
that  in  the  nature  of  things  the  law  of  the  wilderness  is 
different  from  the  law  of  a  land  of  high  agriculture  and 
populous  cities.  God  can  do  all  things,  but  He  cannot 
contradict  Himself,  and  He  who  shaped  the  eventful  de- 
velopment of  Israel's  history  must  have  framed  His  law  to 
correspond  with  it. 

It  is  no  conjecture,  but  plain   historical  fact  stated  in 

which  belong  to  the  analysis  of  the  story  of  the  Deluge.  Broadly  speaking, 
it  appears  that  the  oldest  narrator  (J),  whose  account  is  very  imperfectly 
preserved,  and  whose  hand  is  to  be  recognised  mainly  in  xix.  20-22,  25,  and 
in  chap,  xxxiv.,  did  not  mention  the  present  Decalogue  at  all,  but  told  how 
Moses  was  called  up  to  the  mountain  and  received  there  the  Ten  Words  of 
chap,  xxxiv.  The  second  narrator  (E),  like  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  con- 
fined the  law  proclaimed  at  Sinai  to  the  Decalogue  of  Exod.  xx.,  but  also 
related  how  Moses  was  called  up  to  the  Mount  to  receive  further  revelations 
(not  for  immediate  publication).  In  his  absence  the  incident  of  the  golden 
calf  took  place,  and  as  a  punishment  the  people  were  at  once  dismissed  from 
the  seat  of  Jehovah's  holy  presence.  Finally,  the  First  Legislation  or  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  for  which  no  place  can  be  found  in  either  of  these  narratives, 
may  perhaps  be  best  accounted  for  by  the  very  ingenious  conjecture  of 
Kuenen,  that  chaps,  xxi.-xxiii.,  with  verses  3-8  of  chap,  xxiv.,  are  part  of  the 
narrative  of  E,  but  originally  stood  in  quite  another  place,  that,  in  fact,  they 
are  the  old  account  of  the  legislation  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  of  which  the 
Deuteronomic  code  is  a  new  and  enlarged  edition.  AVhen  both  editions  came 
to  be  brought  together  in  one  book  the  old  code  was  thrown  back  among  the 
transactions  at  Mount  Sinai.  On  the  view  the  original  narrative  of  E  was 
in  full  harmony  with  the  Deuteronomic  account  of  the  successive  stages  of  the 
legislation. 


LECT.  XI  POST-MOSAIC   TOR  AH  339 

Exod.  xviii.,  that  Moses  judged  his  contemporaries  by  bring- 
ing individual  hard  cases  before  Jehovah  for  decision.  This 
was  the  actual  method  of  his  Torah,  a  method  strictly 
practical,  and  in  precise  conformity  with  the  genius  and 
requirements  of  primitive  nations.  The  events  of  Sinai,  and 
the  establishment  of  the  covenant  on  the  basis  of  the  Ten 
Words,  did  not  cut  short  this  kind  of  Torah.  On  the 
contrary,  there  is  clear  proof  that  direct  appeal  to  a  Divine 
judgment  continued  to  be  practised  in  Israel.  The  First 
Legislation  (Exod.  xxi.  6,  xxii.  8)  speaks  of  bringing  a  case 
to  God,  and  receiving  the  sentence  of  God,  where  our  version 
has  "  the  judges."  The  sanctuary  was  the  seat  of  judgment, 
and  the  decisions  were  Jehovah's  Torah.  So  still,  in  the 
time  of  Eli,  we  read  that,  if  man  offend  against  man,  God 
gives  judgment  as  daysman  between  them  (1  Sam.  ii.  25). 
Jehovah  is  in  Israel  a  living  judge,  a  living  and  present  law- 
giver. He  has  all  the  functions  of  an  actual  king  present 
among  his  people  (Isa.  xxxiii.  22).  So  the  prophets  still  view 
Jehovah's  law  as  a  living  and  growing  thing,  communicated 
to  Israel  as  to  weanlings,  "  precept  upon  precept,  line  upon 
line,  here  a  little  and  there  a  little  "  (Isa.  xxviii.  9  sq.) ;  and 
their  religion,  drawn  direct  from  Jehovah,  is  contrasted  with 
the  traditional  religion,  which  is  "  a  command  of  men  learned 
and  taught "  (Isa.  xxix.  13).  A  code  is  of  necessity  the  final 
result  and  crystallised  form  of  such  a  living  divine  Torah, 
just  as  in  all  nations  consuetudinary  and  judge-made  law- 
precedes  codification  and  statute  law.  The  difference  between 
Israel  and  other  nations  lay  essentially  in  this,  that  Jehovah 
was  Israel's  Judge,  and  therefore  Israel's  Lawgiver.  This 
divine  Torah  begins  with  Moses.  As  all  goes  back  to  his 
initiative,  the  Israelites  were  not  concerned  to  remember  the 
precise  history  of  each  new  precept ;  and,  when  the  whole 
system  developed  under  continuous  divine  guidance  is  summed 
up  in  a  code,  that  code  is  simply  set  down  as  IMosaic  Torah. 


340  THE    FIRST 


LECT,  XI 


We  still  call  the  steam-engine  by  the  name  of  Watt,  though 
the  steam-engine  of  to-day  has  many  parts  that  his  had 
not. 

The  Bible  has  not  so  narrow  a  conception  of  revelation  as 
we  sometimes  cling  to.  According  to  Isaiah  xxviii.  23  sq. 
the  rules  of  good  husbandry  are  a  "judgment"  taught  to  the 
ploughman  by  Jehovah,  part  of  Jehovah's  Torah  (ver.  26). 
The  piety  of  Israel  recognised  every  sound  and  wholesome 
ordinance  of  daily  and  social  life  as  a  direct  gift  of  Jehovah's 
wisdom.  "This  also  cometh  forth  from  Jehovah  of  hosts, 
whose  counsel  is  miraculous,  and  His  wisdom  great."  Ac- 
cordingly Jehovah's  law  contains,  not  only  institutes  of  direct 
revelation  in  our  limited  sense  of  that  word,  but  old  con- 
suetudinary usages,  laws  identical  with  those  of  other  early 
peoples,  which  had  become  sacred  by  being  taken  up  into  the 
God-given  polity  of  Israel,  and  worked  into  harmony  with 
the  very  present  reality  of  His  redeeming  sovereignty.  We 
shall  best  picture  to  ourselves  what  the  ancient  Hebrews 
understood  by  divine  statutes,  by  a  brief  survey  of  the 
manner  of  life  prescribed  in  the  First  Legislation. 

The  society  contemplated  in  this  legislation  is  of  very 
simple  structure.  The  basis  of  life  is  agricultural.  Cattle 
and  agricultural  produce  are  the  elements  of  wealth,  and  the 
laws  of  property  deal  almost  exclusively  with  them.  The 
principles  of  civil  and  criminal  justice  are  those  still  current 
among  the  Arabs  of  the  desert.  They  are  two  in  number, 
retaliation  and  pecuniary  compensation.  Murder  is  dealt 
with  by  the  law  of  blood-revenge,  but  the  innocent  manslayer 
may  seek  asylum  at  God's  altar.  With  murder  are  ranked 
manstealing,  offences  against  parents,  and  witchcraft.  Other 
injuries  are  occasions  of  self-help  or  of  private  suits  to  be 
adjusted  at  the  sanctuary.  Personal  injuries  fall  under  the 
law  of  retaliation,  just  as  murder  does.  Blow  for  blow  is 
stiU  the  law  of  the  Arabs,  and  in  Canaan  no  doubt,  as  in  the 


LEGISLATION  341 


desert,  the  retaliation  was  usually  sought  in  the  way  of 
self-help.  The  principle  of  retaliation  is  conceived  as 
legitimate  vengeance,  xxi.  20,  21,  margin.  Except  in  this 
form  there  is  no  punishment,  but  only  compensation,  which 
in  some  cases  is  at  the  will  of  the  injured  party  (who  has 
the  alternative  of  direct  revenge),  but  in  general  is  defined 
by  law. 

Degrading  punislnnents,  as  imprisonment  or  the  bastinado, 
are  unknown,  and  loss  of  liberty  is  inflicted  only  on  the  thief 
who  cannot  pay  a  fine.  The  slave  retains  definite  rights. 
He  recovers  his  freedom  after  seven  years,  unless  he  prefers 
to  remain  a  bondman,  and  to  seal  this  determination  by  a 
symbolical  act  at  the  door  of  the  sanctuary.  His  right  of 
blood-revenge  against  his  master  is  limited,  and,  instead  of 
the  lex  talionis,  for  minor  injuries  he  can  claim  his  liberty. 
Women  do  not  enjoy  full  social  equality  with  men.  Women 
slaves  were  slaves  for  life,  but  were  usually  married  to 
members  of  the  family  or  servants  of  the  household.  The 
daughter  was  her  father's  property,  who  received  a  price  for 
surrendering  her  to  a  husband ;  and  so  a  daughter's  dis- 
honour is  compensated  by  law  as  a  pecuniary  loss  to  her 
father.  The  Israelites  directly  contemplated  in  these  laws 
are  evidently  men  of  independent  bearing  and  personal 
dignity,  such  as  are  still  found  in  secluded  parts  of  the 
Semitic  world  under  a  half-patriarchal  constitution  of  society 
where  every  freeman  is  a  small  landholder.  But  there  is  no 
strong  central  authority.  The  tribunal  of  the  sanctuary  is 
arbiter,  not  executive.  No  man  is  secure  without  his  own 
aid,  and  the  widow  or  orphan  looks  for  help,  not  to  man,  but 
to  Jehovah  Himself.  But  if  the  executive  is  weak,  a  strict 
regard  for  justice  is  inculcated.  Jehovah  is  behind  the  law, 
and  He  will  vindicate  the  right.  He  requires  of  Israel 
humanity  as  well  as  justice.  The  Ger,  or  stranger  living 
under  the  protection  of  a  family  or  community,  has  no  legal 


342  THE    FIRST 


status,  but  he  must  not  be  oppressed.^  The  Sabbath  is  en- 
forced as  an  ordinance  of  humanity,  and  to  the  same  end  the 
produce  of  every  field  or  vineyard  must  be  left  to  the  poor 
one  year  in  seven.  The  precepts  of  religious  worship  are 
simple.  He  who  sacrifices  to  any  God  but  Jehovah  falls 
under  the  ban.  The  only  ordinance  of  ceremonial  sanctity  is 
to  abstain  from  the  flesh  of  animals  torn  by  wild  beasts. 
The  sacred  dues  are  the  firstlings  and  first  fruits :  the  former 
must  be  presented  at  the  sanctuary  on  the  eighth  day.  This, 
of  course,  presupposes  a  plurality  of  sanctuaries,  and  in  fact 
Exodus  XX.  24,  25,  explains  that  an  altar  of  stone  may  be 
built,  and  Jehovah  acceptably  approached,  in  every  place 
where  He  sets  a  memorial  of  His  name.  The  stated  occasions 
of  sacrifice  are  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  in  commemora- 
tion of  the  exodus,  the  feast  of  harvest,  and  that  of  ingather- 
ing. These  feasts  mark  the  cycle  of  the  agricultural  year, 
and  at  them  every  male  must  present  his  homage  before 
Jehovah.  The  essential  points  of  sacrificial  ritual  are  abstin- 
ence from  leaven  in  connection  with  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice, 
and  the  rule  that  the  fat  must  be  burnt  the  same  night. 

You  see  at  once  that  this  is  no  abstract  divine  legislation. 
It  is  a  social  system  adapted  to  a  very  definite  type  of 
national  life.  On  the  common  view,  many  of  its  precepts 
were  immediately  superseded  by  the  Levitical  or  Deutero- 

^  The  Hebrew  Ger  exactly  corresponds  to  the  Arabian  Jar,  on  whose 
position  see  Kinship  and  Ilarriage,  p.  41  sqq.  The  protected  stranger  is  still 
known  in  Arabia.  Among  the  Hodheil  at  Zeimeh  I  found  in  1880  an  Indian 
boy,  the  son  of  a  Suleimany  or  wandering  smith,  who  was  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  community,  every  member  of  which  would  have  made  the  lad's 
quarrel  his  own.  In  old  Arabia  such  strangers  often  came  at  last  to  be  merged 
in  the  tribe  of  their  protectors,  and  this  must  have  happened  on  a  large  scale 
in  old  Israel,  and  accounts  for  the  absorption  of  the  Canaanite  population 
between  the  time  of  the  Judges  and  the  Exile.  But  in  Deuteronomy  the 
distinctive  position  of  an  Israelite  is  more  sharply  defined.  In  Deut.  xiv.  21 
unclean  food,  which  the  First  Legislation  commands  to  be  thrown  to  the  dogs, 
may  be  given  to  the  Ger,  In  the  Levitical  legislation  the  word  Ger  is  already 
on  the  way  to  assume  the  later  technical  sense  of  proselyte. 


LECT.  XI  LEGISLATION  343 

nomic  code,  before  they  ever  had  a  chance  of  being  put  in 
operation  in  Canaan.  But  this  hypothesis,  so  dishonouring 
to  the  Divine  Legislator,  who  can  do  nothing  in  vain,  is 
refuted  by  the  whole  tenor  of  the  code,  which  undoubtedly  is 
as  living  and  real  a  system  of  law  as  was  ever  written.  The 
details  of  the  system  are  almost  all  such  as  are  found  among 
other  nations.  The  law  of  Israel  does  not  yet  aim  at  singu- 
larity ;  it  is  enough  that  it  is  pervaded  by  a  constant  sense 
that  the  righteous  and  gracious  Jehovah  is  behind  the  law 
and  wields  it  in  conformity  with  His  own  holy  nature.  The 
law,  therefore,  makes  no  pretence  at  ideality.  It  contains 
precepts  adapted,  as  our  Lord  puts  it,  to  the  hardness  of  the 
people's  heart.  The  ordinances  are  not  abstractly  perfect, 
and  fit  to  be  a  rule  of  life  in  every  state  of  society,  but  they 
are  fit  to  make  Israel  a  riojhteous,  humane,  and  God-fearing 
people,  and  to  facilitate  a  healthy  growth  towards  better 
things. 

The  important  point  that  reference  to  Jehovah  and  His 
character  determines  the  spirit  rather  than  the  details  of  the 
legislation  cannot  be  too  strongly  accentuated.  The  civil 
laws  are  exactly  such  as  the  comparative  lawyer  is  familiar 
with  in  other  nations.  Even  the  religious  ordinances  are  far 
from  unique  in  their  formal  elements.  The  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread  has  a  special  reference  to  the  deliverance 
from  Egypt,  which  is  the  historical  basis  of  Israel's  distinct- 
ive religion.  But  even  this  feast  has  also  a  more  general 
reference,  for  it  is  clearly  connected  in  Exod.  xiii.  3-6, 
xxxiv.  18-20,  with  the  sacrifice  of  the  firstlings  of  the  flocks 
and  herds,  which  is  a  form  of  worship  known  also  to  the 
ancient  Arabs ;  and  the  two  other  feasts,  which  are  purely 
agricultural,  are  quite  analogous  to  what  is  found  in  other 
nations.  The  feast  of  harvest  reappears  in  all  parts  of  the 
ancient  world,  and  the  Canaanite  vintage  feast  at  Shechem 
offers  a  close  parallel  to  the  feast  of  ingathering  {supra,  p.  269). 


344  THE    FIRST  LECT.  XI 

The  distinctive  character  of  the  religion  appears  in  the  laws 
directed  against  polytheism  and  witchcraft,  in  the  promin- 
ence given  to  righteousness  and  humanity  as  the  things 
which  are  most  pleasing  to  Jehovah  and  constitute  the  true 
significance  of  such  an  ordinance  as  the  Sabbath,  and,  above 
all,  in  the  clearness  with  which  the  law  holds  forth  the  truth 
that  Jehovah's  goodness  to  Israel  is  no  mere  natural  relation 
such  as  binds  Moab  to  Chemosh,  that  His  ^favour  to  His 
people  is  directed  by  moral  principles  and  is  forfeited  by 
moral  iniquity.  In  this  code  we  already  read  the  foundation 
of  the  thesis  of  Amos,  that  just  because  Jehovah  knows  Israel 
He  observes  and  punishes  the  nation's  sins  (Amos  iii.  2  ; 
Exod.  xxii.  23,  27,  xxiii.  7). 

Now,  we  have  seen  that  before  the  Exile  the  most  char- 
acteristic features  of  the  Levitical  legislation,  and  so  the 
most  prominent  things  in  our  present  Pentateuch,  had  no 
influence  on  Israel,  either  on  the  righteous  or  the  wicked. 
This  result  involved  us  in  great  perplexity.  For,  if  the 
traditional  view  of  the  age  of  the  Pentateuch  is  correct, 
there  was  through  all  these  centuries  an  absolute  divorce 
between  God's  written  law  and  the  practical  workings  of  His 
grace.  And  the  perplexity  was  only  increased  when  we 
found  that,  nevertheless,  there  was  a  Torah  in  Israel  before 
the  prophetic  books,  to  which  the  prophets  appeal  as  the 
indisputable  standard  of  Jehovah's  will.  But  the  puzzle  is 
solved  when  we  compare  the  history  with  this  First  Legisla- 
tion. This  law  did  not  remain  without  fruit  in  Israel,  and 
as  we  have  just  seen  in  the  case  of  Amos,  its  conception  of 
Jehovah's  government  affords  a  firm  footing  for  the  pro- 
phetic word.  There  is  abundant  proof  that  the  principles 
of  this  legislation  were  acknowledged  in  Israel.  The  appeal 
to  God  as  judge  appears  in  1  Sam.  ii.  25  ;  the  law  of  blood- 
revenge,  administered,  not  by  a  central  authority,  but  by  the 
family  of  the  deceased,  occurs  in  2  Sam.  iii.  30,  xiv.  7,  etc.; 


LECT.  XI  LEGISLATION  345 

the  altar  is  the  asyhini  in  1  Kings  i.  50,  and  elsewhere  ;  the 
thief  taken  in  the  breach  (Exod.  xxii.  2)  is  alluded  to  by 
Jer.  ii.  34  ;  and  so  forth.  The  sacred  ordinances  aG;ree  with 
those  in  the  history,  or,  if  exceptions  are  noted,  they  are  stig- 
matised as  irregular.  The  plurality  of  altars  accords  with 
this  law.  The  annual  feasts — at  least  that  of  the  autumn, 
which  seems  to  have  been  best  observed — are  often  alluded 
to ;  and  the  night  service  of  commemoration  for  the  exodus 
appears  in  Isa.  xxx.  29.  The  rule  that  the  pilgrim  must 
bring  an  offering  was  recognised  at  Shiloh  (1  Sam.  i.  21). 
So,  too,  the  complaint  against  Eli's  sons  for  their  delay  in 
burning  the  fat  is  based  on  the  same  principle  as  Exod.  xxiii. 
18  ;  and  the  use  of  leavened  bread  on  the  altar,  which  is 
forbidden  in  Exod.  xxiii.  18,  was  indeed  admitted  in  the 
northern  shrines  at  the  time  of  Amos,  but  is  referred  to  by 
that  prophet  in  sarcastic  terms,  as  if  it  w^ere  a  departure 
from  the  ancient  ritual  of  Jehovah's  sanctuaries  (Amos  iv.  5). 
The  prohibition  to  eat  blood,  which  is  essentially  one  with 
the  prohibition  of  torn  flesh,  is  sedulously  observed  by  Saul 
(1  Sam.  xiv.  33  s^.),  and  Saul  also  distinguishes  himself  by 
suppressing  witchcraft.  The  proof  that  this  law  was  known 
and  acknowledged  in  all  its  leading  provisions  is  as  complete 
as  the  proof  that  the  Levitical  law^  was  still  unheard  of. 
This  result  confirms,  and  at  the  same  time  supplements,  our 
previous  argument.  We  have  now  brought  the  history  into 
positive  relation  to  one  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the 
critical  analysis  of  the  books  of  Moses  has  already  filled  up 
one  of  those  breaches  between  law  and  history  which  the 
traditional  view  can  do  nothinff  to  heal. 


LECTUEE   XII 

THE  DEUTERONOMIC  CODE  AND   THE  LEVITICAL   LAW 

In  the  First  Legislation  the  question  of  correct  ritual  has 
little  prominence.  The  simple  rules  laid  down  are  little 
more  than  the  necessary  and  natural  expression  of  that 
principle  which  we  saw  in  Lecture  VII I.  to  be  the  pre- 
supposition of  the  popular  worship  of  Israel,  even  when  it 
diverged  most  widely  from  the  Levitical  forms.  Jehovah 
alone  is  Israel's  God.  It  is  a  crime,  analogous  to  treason,  to 
depart  from  Him  and  sacrifice  to  other  gods.  As  the  Lord  of 
Israel  and  Israel's  land,  the  giver  of  all  good  gifts  to  His 
people,  He  has  a  manifest  claim  on  Israel's  homage,  and 
receives  at  their  hands  such  dues  as  their  neighbours  paid  to 
their  gods,  such  dues  as  a  king  receives  from  his  people 
(comp.  1  Sam.  viii.  15,  17).  The  occasions  of  homage  are 
those  seasons  of  natural  gladness  which  an  agricultural  life 
suggests.  The  joy  of  harvest  and  vintage  is  a  rejoicing  before 
Jehovah,  when  the  worshipper  brings  a  gift  in  his  hand,  as 
he  would  do  in  approaching  an  earthly  sovereign,  and 
presents  the  choicest  first  fruits  at  the  altar,  just  as  his 
Canaanite  neighbour  does  in  the  house  of  Baal  (Jud.  ix.  27). 
The  whole  worship  is  spontaneous  and  natural.  It  has 
hardly  the  character  of  a  positive  legislation,  and  its  distinc- 
tion from  heathen  rites  lies  less  in  the  outward  form  than  in 
the  different  conception  of  Jehovah  which  the  true  wor- 


1 


LECT.  XII  THE    EIGHTH    CENTURY  347 

shipper  should  bear  in  his  heart.  To  a  people  which  "  knows 
Jehovah,"  this  unambitious  service,  in  which  the  expression 
of  grateful  homage  to  Him  runs  through  all  the  simple  joys 
of  a  placid  agricultural  life,  was  sufficient  to  form  the  visible 
basis  of  a  pure  and  earnest  piety.  But  its  forms  gave  no 
protection  against  deflection  into  heathenism  and  immorality 
w^hen  Jehovah's  spiritual  nature  and  moral  precepts  were 
forgotten.  The  feasts  and  sacrifices  might  still  run  their 
accustomed  round  when  Jehovah  was  practically  confounded 
with  the  Baalim,  and  there  was  no  more  truth  or  mercy  or 
knowledge  of  God  in  the  land  (Hosea  iv.  1). 

Such,  in  fact,  was  the  state  of  things  in  the  eighth  century, 
the  age  of  the  earliest  prophetic  books.  The  declensions  of 
Israel  had  not  checked  the  outward  zeal  with  which  Jehovah 
was  worshipped.  Never  had  the  national  sanctuaries  been 
more  sedulously  frequented,  never  had  the  feasts  been  more 
splendid  or  the  offerings  more  copious.  But  the  foundations 
of  the  old  life  were  breaking  up.  The  external  prosperity  of 
the  state  covered  an  abyss  of  social  disorder.  Profusion  and 
luxury  among  the  higher  classes  stood  in  startling  contrast  to 
the  misery  of  the  poor.  Lawlessness  and  open  crime  were  on 
the  increase.  The  rulers  of  the  nation  grew  fat  upon  oppres- 
sion, but  there  w^as  none  who  was  grieved  for  the  wound  of 
Joseph.  These  evils  were  earliest  and  most  acutely  felt  in 
the  kingdom  of  Ephraim,  where  Amos  declares  them  to  be 
already  incurable  under  the  outwardly  prosperous  reign  of 
Jeroboam  II.  With  the  downfall  of  Jehu's  dynasty  the  last 
bonds  of  social  order  were  dissolved,  and  the  Assyrian  found 
an  easy  prey  in  a  land  already  reduced  to  practical  anarchy. 
The  smaller  realm  of  Judah  seemed  at  first  to  show  more 
hopeful  symptoms  (Hosea  iv.  15).  But  the  separation  of  the 
kingdoms  had  not  broken  the  subtle  links  that  connected 
Judah  with  the  greater  Israel  of  the  North.  At  all  periods, 
the  fortunes  and  internal  movements  of  Ephraim  had  power- 


348  DECADENCE    OF  lect.  xii 

fully  reacted  on  the  Southern  Kingdom.  Isaiah  and  Micah 
describe  a  corruption  within  the  house  of  David  altogether 
similar  to  the  sin  of  Samaria.  "  The  statutes  of  Omri  were 
kept,  and  all  the  works  of  the  house  of  Ahab  "  (Micah  vi.  16). 
The  prominence  which  the  prophets  assign  to  social 
grievances  and  civil  disorders  has  often  led  to  their  being 
described  as  politicians,  a  democratic  Opposition  in  the 
aristocratic  state.  This  is  a  total  misconception.  The 
prophets  of  the  eighth  century  have  no  new  theories  of 
government,  and  propose  no  practical  scheme  of  political 
readjustment.  They  are  the  friends  of  the  poor  because 
they  hate  oppression,  and  they  attack  the  governing  classes 
for  their  selfishness  and  injustice;  but  their  cry  is  not  for 
better  institutions  but  for  better  men,  not  for  the  abolition 
of  aristocratic  privileges  but  for  an  honest  and  godly  use 
of  them.  The  work  of  the  prophets  is  purely  religious  ; 
they  censure  what  is  inconsistent  with  the  knowledge  and 
fear  of  Jehovah,  but  see  no  way  of  remedy  save  in  the 
repentance  and  return  to  Him  of  all  classes  of  society, 
after  a  sifting  work  of  judgment  has  destroyed  the  sinners 
of  Jehovah's  people  without  suffering  one  grain  of  true 
wheat  to  fall  to  the  ground  (Amos  ix.  9  sq. ;  Isa.  vi.,  etc.). 
But  to  the  prophets  the  observance  of  justice  and  mercy 
in  the  state  are  the  first  elements  of  religion.  The  religious 
subject,  the  worshipping  individual,  Jehovah's  son,  was 
not  the  individual  Israelite,  but  the  nation  qua  nation, 
and  the  Old  Testament  analogue  to  the  peace  of  conscience 
which  marks  a  healthy  condition  of  spiritual  life  in  the 
Christian  was  that  inner  peace  and  harmony  of  the  estates 
of  the  realm  which  can  only  be  secured  where  justice  is 
done  and  mercy  loved.  The  ideal  of  the  prophets  in  the 
eighth  century  is  not  different  from  that  of  the  First  Legis- 
lation. In  the  old  law  the  worship  of  feasts  and  sacrifices 
is  the  natural  consecration,  in  act,  of  a  simple,  happy  society, 


LECT.  xir  OLD    ISRAEL  349 

nourished  by  Jehovah's  good  gifts  in  answer  to  the  labour 
of  the  husbandman,  and  cemented  by  a  regard  for  justice  and 
liabits  of  social  kindliness.  When  the  old  healthy  harmony 
of  classes  was  dissolved,  when  the  rich  and  the  poor  were  no 
longer  knit  together  by  a  kindly  sympathy  and  patriarchal 
bond  of  dependence,  but  confronted  one  another  as  oppressor 
and  oppressed,  when  the  strain  thus  put  on  all  social  relations 
burst  the  weak  bonds  of  outer  order  and  filled  the  land  with 
unexpiated  bloodshed,  the  pretence  of  homage  to  Jehovah  at 
His  sanctuary  was  but  the  crowning  proof  that  Israel  knew 
not  his  God.  "  When  ye  spread  forth  your  hands,  I  will  hide 
mine  eyes  from  you  ;  yea,  w^hen  ye  make  many  prayers  I  will 
not  hear  :  your  hands  are  full  of  blood  "  (Isa.  i.  15). 

The  causes  of  the  inner  disintegration  of  Israel  were 
manifold,  and  we  cannot  pause  to  examine  them  fully.  But 
in  this,  as  in  many  similar  cases  which  history  exhibits,  the 
strain  which  snapped  the  old  bands  of  social  unity  proceeded 
mainly  from  the  effects  of  warlike  invasion  reacting  on  a  one- 
sided progress  in  material  prosj)erity,  to  which  the  order  of 
the  state  had  not  been  able  to  readjust  itself.  The  luxury  of 
the  higher  classes,  described  by  Amos  and  Isaiah,  shows  that 
the  nobles  of  Israel  were  no  longer  great  farmers,  as  Saul  and 
Nabal  had  been,  living  among  the  peasantry  and  sharing  their 
toil.  The  connection  with  Tyre,  which  commenced  in  the 
days  of  David,  opened  a  profitable  foreign  market  for  the 
agricultural  produce  of  Palestine  (Ezek.  xxvii.  l7),  and  in- 
troduced foreign  luxuries  in  return.  The  landowners  became 
merchants  and  forestallers  of  grain  (Amos  viii.  5  ;  Hosea  xii. 
7).  The  introduction  of  such  a  commerce,  throwing  the 
Hebrews  into  immediate  relations  with  the  great  emporium 
of  international  traffic,  necessarily  led  to  accumulation  of 
wealth  in  a  few  hands,  and  to  the  corresponding  impoverish- 
ment of  the  landless  class,  as  exportation  raised  the  price  of 
the  necessaries  of  life.      In  times  of  famine,  or  under  the 


350  DECADENCE    OF  lect.  xii 

distress  wrought  by  prolonged  and  ferocious  warfare  with 
Syria,  the  once  independent  peasantry  fell  into  the  condition 
now  so  universal  in  the  East.  They  were  loaded  with  debt, 
cheated  on  all  hands,  and  often  had  to  relinquish  their  per- 
sonal liberty  (Amos  ii.  6,  7 ;  Micah  iii.  2  sgi.,  vi.  10  sq^.,  etc.). 
The  order  of  the  state,  entirely  based  on  the  old  pre-com- 
mercial  state  of  things  when  trade  was  the  affair  of  the 
Canaanites  —  Canaanite,  in  old  Hebrew,  is  the  word  for  a 
trader — was  not  able  to  adjust  itself  to  the  new  circum- 
stances. How  entirely  commercial  avocations  were  unknown 
to  the  old  law  appears  from  the  circumstance  that  the  idea 
of  capital  is  unknown.  It  is  assumed  in  Exod.  xxii.  25  that 
no  one  borrows  money  except  for  personal  distress,  and  all 
interest  is  conceived  as  usury  (comp.  Psalm  xv.  5).  In  pro- 
portion, therefore,  as  the  nation  began  to  share  the  wealth 
and  luxury  of  the  Canaanite  trading  cities  of  the  coast,  it 
divorced  itself  from  the  old  social  forms  of  the  religion  of 
Jehovah.  The  Canaanite  influence  affected  religion  in  affect- 
ing the  national  life,  and  it  was  inevitable  that  the  worship 
of  the  sanctuary,  which  had  always  been  in  the  closest 
rapport  with  the  daily  habits  of  the  people,  should  itself 
assume  the  colour  of  Canaanite  luxury  and  Canaanite  im- 
morality. This  tendency  was  not  checked  by  the  extirpation 
of  professed  worship  of  the  Tyrian  Baal.  Jehovah  Himself 
in  His  many  shrines  assumed  the  features  of  the  local 
Baalim  of  the  Canaanite  sanctuaries,  and  horrible  orgies  of 
unrestrained  sensuality,  of  which  we  no  longer  dare  to  speak 
in  unveiled  words,  polluted  the  temples  where  Jehovah  still 
reigned  in  name,  and  where  His  help  was  confidently  expected 
to  save  Israel  from  Damascus  and  Assyria. 

The  prophets,  as  I  have  already  said,  never  profess  to 
devise  a  scheme  of  political  and  social  reformation  to  meet 
these  evils.  Their  business  is  not  to  govern,  but  to  teach  the 
nation  to  know  Jehovah,  and  to  lay  bare  the  guilt  of  every 


LECT.  XII  OLD    ISRAEL  351 

departure  from  Him.  It  is  for  the  righteous  ruler  to  deter- 
mine how  the  principles  of  justice,  mercy,  and  God-fearing 
can  be  made  practically  operative  in  society.  Thus  the 
criticism  of  the  prophets  on  established  usages  is  mainly 
negative.  The  healing  of  Israel  must  come  from  Jehovah. 
It  is  useless  to  seek  help  from  political  combinations,  and 
it  is  a  mistake  to  fancy  that  international  commerce  and 
foreign  culture  are  additions  to  true  happiness.  This  judg- 
ment proceeds  from  no  theories  of  political  economy.  It 
would  be  a  fallacy  to  cite  the  prophets  as  witness  that 
commerce  and  material  civilisation  are  bad  in  themselves. 
All  that  they  say  is  that  these  things,  as  they  found  them 
in  their  own  time,  have  undone  Israel,  and  that  the  first  step 
towards  deliverance  must  be  a  judgment  which  sweeps  away 
all  the  spurious  show  of  prosperity  that  has  come  between 
Jehovah's  people  and  the  true  knowledge  of  their  God  (Isa. 
ii. ;  Micah  v.).  Israel  must  again  pass  through  the  wilder- 
ness. All  the  good  gifts  of  fertile  Canaan  must  be  taken 
away  by  a  desolating  calamity.  Then  the  valley  of  trouble 
shall  again  become  a  gate  of  hope,  and  Jehovah's  covenant 
shall  renew  its  course  on  its  old  principles,  but  with  far 
more  perfect  realisation  (Hos.  ii.).  The  prophetic  pictures  of 
Israel's  final  felicity  are  at  this  time  all  framed  on  the  pattern 
of  the  past.  The  days  of  David  shall  return  under  a  righteous 
king  (Micah  v.  2  sg'. ;  Hos.  iii.  5 ;  Isa.  xi.  1  sq.),  and  Israel 
shall  realise,  as  it  had  never  done  in  the  past,  the  old  ideal  of 
simple  agricultural  life,  in  which  every  good  gift  is  received 
directly  from  Jehovah's  hand,  and  is  supplied  by  Him  in  a 
plenty  that  testifies  to  His  perfect  reconciliation  with  His 
people  (Hos.  ii.  21  sq. ;  Amos  ix.  11  s^^.  ;  Micah  iv.  4,  vii.  14 ; 
Isa.  iv.  2). 

This  picture  is  ideal.  It  was  never  literally  fulfilled  to 
Israel  in  Canaan,  and  now  that  the  people  of  God  has  become 
a  spiritual  society,  dissociated  from  national  limitations  and 


352  KING  josiah's 


relation  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  it  never  can  be  fulfilled  save 
in  a  spiritual  sense.  The  restoration  of  Israel  to  Palestine 
would  be  no  fulfilment  of  prophecy  now,  for  the  good  things 
of  the  land  never  had  any  other  value  to  the  prophets  than 
that  they  were  the  expression  of  Jehovah's  love  to  the  people 
of  His  choice,  which  is  now  more  clearly  declared  in  Christ 
Jesus,  and  brought  nigh  to  the  heart  by  His  spirit.  But  the 
ideal  supplied  a  practical  impulse.  It  did  not  provide  the 
sketch  of  a  new  legislation  which  could  cure  the  deeper 
ills  of  the  state  without  the  divine  judgment  which  the 
prophets  foretold,  but  it  indicated  evils  that  must  be  cleared 
away,  and  with  which  the  old  divine  laws  were  unable  to 
grapple. 

One  point,  in  particular,  became  thoroughly  plain.  The 
sacrificial  worship  was  corrupt  to  the  core,  and  could  never 
again  be  purified  by  the  mere  removal  of  foreign  elements 
from  the  local  high  places.  The  first  step  towards  reforma- 
tion must  lie  in  the  abolition  of  these  polluted  shrines,  and 
to  this  task  the  adherents  of  the  prophets  addressed  them- 
selves. 

At  this  point  in  the  history  the  centre  of  interest  is 
transferred  from  Ephraim  to  Judah.  In  Ephraim  the 
sanctuaries  perished  with  the  fall  of  the  old  kingdom,  or 
sank,  if  possible,  to  a  lower  depth  in  the  worship  ot  the 
mixed  populations  introduced  by  the  conqueror.  In  Judah 
there  was  still  some  hope  of  better  things.  The  party  of 
reform  was  for  a  space  in  the  ascendant  under  King 
Hezekiah,  when  the  miraculous  overthrow  of  the  Assyrian 
vindicated  the  authority  of  the  prophet  Isaiah  and  justified 
his  confident  prediction  that  Jehovah  would  protect  His 
sacred  hearth  on  Mount  Zion.  But  the  victory  was  not 
gained  in  a  moment.  Under  Manasseh  a  terrible  reaction 
set  in,  and  the  corrupt  popular  religion  crushed  the  pro- 
phetic party,  not  without  bloodshed.      The  truth  was  cast 


REFORMATION  353 


down,  but  not  overthrown.  In  Josiah's  reign  the  tide  of 
battle  turned,  and  then  it  was  that  "  the  book  of  the  Torah  " 
was  found  in  the  Temple.  Its  words  smote  the  hearts  of 
the  king  and  the  people,  for  though  the  book  had  no  external 
credentials  it  bore  its  evidence  within  itself,  and  it  was 
stamped  with  the  approval  of  the  prophetess  Huldah.  The 
Torah  was  adopted  in  formal  covenant,  and  on  its  lines, 
— the  lines  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code,  as  we  have  already 
seen  {supra,  p.  258), — the  reformation  of  Josiah  was  carried 
out. 

The  details  of  the  process  of  reformation  which  cul- 
minated in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah  are  far  from 
clear,  but  a  few  leading  points  can  be  established  with 
precision.  The  central  difference  between  the  Deuteronomic 
Code,  on  which  Josiah  acted,  and  the  old  code  of  the  First 
Legislation,  lies  in  the  principle  that  the  Temple  at  Jeru- 
salem is  the  only  legitimate  sanctuary.  The  legislator  in 
Deuteronomy  expressly  puts  forth  this  ordinance  as  an 
innovation :  "  Ye  shall  not  do,  as  we  do  here  this  day, 
every  man  whatsoever  is  right  in  his  own  eyes "  (Deut. 
xii.  8).  Moreover,  it  is  explained  that  the  law  which 
confines  sacrifice  to  one  altar  involves  modifications  of 
ancient  usage.  If  the  land  of  Israel  becomes  so  large 
that  the  sanctuary  is  not  easily  accessible,  bullocks  and 
sheep  may  be  eaten  at  home,  as  game  is  eaten,  without 
being  sacrificed,  the  blood  only  being  poured  on  the 
ground.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  earlier  custom 
here  presupposed,  on  which  every  feast  of  beef  or  mutton 
was  sacrificial,  obtained  long  after  the  settlement  of  Israel 
in  Canaan,  on  the  basis  of  the  principle  of  many  altars 
laid  down  in  Exod.  xx.  24,  and  presupposed  in  the  First 
Legislation.  But  further,  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  which 
reproduces  almost  every  precept  of  the  older  code,  with 
or    without    modification,    remodels    the   ordinances   which 

23 


354  THE    CODE    OF 


presuppose  a  plurality  of  sanctuaries.  According  to  Exod. 
xxii.  30,  the  firstlings  are  to  be  offered  on  the  eighth  day. 
This  is  impracticable  under  the  law  of  one  altar;  and  so 
in  Deut.  xv.  19  sq.  it  is  appointed  that  they  shall  be  eaten 
year  by  year  at  the  sanctuary,  and  that  meantime  no  work 
shall  be  done  with  the  firstling  bullock,  and  that  a  firstling 
sheep  shall  not  be  shorn.  Again,  the  asylum  for  the  man- 
slayer  in  Exod.  xxi.  12-14  is  Jehovah's  altar,  and  so,  in  fact, 
the  altar  was  used  in  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon.  But 
under  the  law  of  Deuteronomy  there  are  to  be  three  fixed 
cities  of  refuge  (Deut.  xix.  1  sq.). 

The  law,  then,  is  quite  distinctly  a  law  for  the  abolition  of 
the  local  sanctuaries,  which  are  recognised  by  the  First  Legis- 
lation, and  had  been  frequented  under  it  without  offence  during 
many  generations.  The  reason  for  the  change  comes  out  in 
Deut.  xii.  2  sq.  The  one  sanctuary  is  ordained  to  prevent 
assimilation  between  Jehovah-worship  and  the  Canaanite  ser- 
vice. The  Israelites  in  the  eighth  century  did  service  on  the 
hill-tops  and  under  the  green  trees  (Hos.  iv.  13 ;  Isa.  i.  29), 
and  in  these  local  sanctuaries  they  practically  merged  their 
Jehovah-worship  in  the  abominations  of  the  heathen.  The 
Deuteronomic  law  designs  to  make  such  syncretism  henceforth 
impossible  by  separating  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah  from  all 
heathen  shrines.  And  so,  in  particular,  the  old  marks  of  a 
sanctuary,  the  maggeicc  and  ashera  (supra,  p.  241),  which  had 
been  used  by  the  patriarchs,  and  continued  to  exist  in  sanc- 
tuaries of  Jehovah  down  to  the  eighth  century,  are  declared 
illegitimate  (Deut.  xvi.  21 ;  Josh.  xxiv.  26  ;  1  Sam.  vi.  14,  vii. 
12  ;  2  Sam.  xx.  8  ;  1  Kings  i.  9  ;  Hosea  iii.  4  ;  1  Kings  vii.  21). 
This  detail  is  one  of  the  clearest  proofs  that  Deuteronomy 
was  unknown  till  long  after  the  days  of  Moses.  How  could 
Joshua,  if  he  had  known  such  a  law,  have  erected  a  maggeha 
or  sacred  pillar  of  unhewn  stone  under  the  sacred  tree  by  the 
sanctuary  at  Shechem  ?     Nay,  this  law  was  still  unknown  to 


DEUTERONOMY  355 


Isaiah,  who  attacks  idolatry,  but  recognises  maggela  and  altar 
as  the  marks  of  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah.  '•  In  that  day,"  he 
says,  prophesying  the  conversion  of  Egypt,  "  there  shall  be  an 
altar  to  Jehovah  within  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  a  magqeha  at 
the  border  thereof  to  Jehovah  "  (Isa.  xix.  19).  Isaiah  could 
not  refer  to  a  forbidden  symbol  as  a  maggeha  to  Jehovah.  He 
takes  it  for  granted  that  Egypt,  when  converted,  will  serve 
Jehovah  by  sacrifice  (ver.  21),  and  do  so  under  the  familiar 
forms  which  Jehovah  has  not  yet  abrogated. 

This  passage  gives  us  a  superior  limit  for  the  date  of  the 
Deuteronomic  Code.  It  was  not  known  to  Isaiah,  and  there- 
fore the  reforms  of  Hezekiah  cannot  have  been  based  upon  it. 
Indeed  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century,  approaching  the 
problem  of  true  worship,  not  from  the  legal  and  practical  side, 
but  from  the  religious  principles  involved,  never  get  so  far  as 
to  indicate  a  detailed  plan  for  the  reorganisation  of  the 
sanctuaries.  Micah  proclaims  God's  wrath  against  the 
maggehas  and  asheras  ;  but  they  perish  in  the  general  fall  of 
the  cities  of  Judah  with  all  their  corrupt  civilisation  (Micah 
V.  10  sq.).  Even  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple  of  Zion  must 
share  the  general  fate  (chap.  iii.  12).  Such  a  prediction  offers 
little  assistance  for  a  plan  of  reformed  worship.  In  the 
prophecies  of  Isaiah  again,  where  the  maggeha  is  still  recog- 
nised as  legitimate,  the  idols  of  the  Judsean  sanctuaries  are 
viewed  as  the  chief  element  in  the  nation's  rebellion,  and  the 
mark  of  repentance  is  to  cast  them  away  (Isa.  xxx.  22,  xxxi. 
6  sq.,  ii.  7,  20).  It  does  not  seem  impossible  that  Isaiah 
would  have  been  content  with  this  reform,  for  he  never 
proclaims  war  against  the  local  sanctuaries  as  he  does  against 
their  idols.  He  perceives,  indeed,  that  not  only  the  idols  but 
the  altars  come  between  Israel  and  Jehovah,  and  lead  tlie 
people  to  look  to  the  work  of  their  own  hands  instead  of  to 
their  Maker  (Isa.  xvii.  7  sq.).  Yet  even  here  the  contrast  is 
not  between  one  altar  and  many,  but  between  the  material 


356  ISAIAH    AND  LECT.  XII 

and  man-made  sanctuary  and  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  The 
prophetic  thought  seems  to  hesitate  on  the  verge  of  transition 
to  the  spiritual  worship  of  the  JSTew  Covenant.  But  the  time 
was  not  yet  ripe  for  so  decisive  a  change. 

To  Isaiah,  Jehovah's  presence  with  His  people  is  still  a 
local  thing.  It  could  not,  indeed,  be  otherwise,  for  the  people 
of  Jehovah  was  itself  a  conception  geographically  defined, 
bound  up  with  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  having  its  centre  in 
Jerusalem.  In  the  crisis  of  the  Assyrian  wars,  the  funda- 
mental religious  thought  that  Jehovah's  gracious  purpose,  and 
therefore  Jehovah's  people,  are  indestructible,  took  in  Isaiah's 
mind  the  definite  form  of  an  assurance  that  Jerusalem  could 
not  fall  before  the  enemy,  "Jehovah  hath  founded  Zion, 
and  the  poor  of  his  people  shall  trust  in  it "  (Isa.  xiv.  32). 
Jehovah,  who  Iiath  his  fire  in  Zion,  and  his  furnace  in 
Jerusalem,  will  protect  his  holy  mountain,  hovering  over  it 
as  birds  over  their  nest  (Isa.  xxxi.  5,  9).  Zion  is  the  invio- 
lable seat  of  Jehovah's  sovereignty,  where  he  dwells  as  a 
devouring  fire,  purging  the  sin  of  His  people  by  consuming 
judgment,  but  also  asserting  His  majesty  against  all  invaders 
(Isa.  xxxiii.  13  sq.,  iv.  4  sq).  This  conception  is  nowhere 
specially  connected  with  the  Temple.  Eather  is  it  the  whole 
plateau  of  Zion  (chap.  iv.  5)  which  is  the  seat  of  Jehovah's 
presence  with  His  people.  But,  according  to  the  whole 
manner  of  thought  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  seat  of 
Jehovah's  presence  to  Israel,  the  centre  from  which  his 
Torah  goes  forth  (Isa.  ii.  3 ;  Micah  iv.  1 ;  cf.  Amos  i.  2),  the 
mountain  of  Jehovah  and  Jehovah's  house  (Isa.  xxx.  29, 
ii.  2),  the  hearth  of  God  (Ariel,  Isa.  xxix.  1),  the  place  of 
solemn  and  festal  assembly  (Isa.  iv.  5,  xxxiii.  20),  must  be 
the  place  of  acceptable  sacrifice,  if  sacrifice  is  to  continue  at 
all.  Isaiah,  "perhaps,  was  not  concerned  to  draw  this  infer- 
ence. His  thoughts  were  rather  full  of  the  spiritual  side  of 
Jehovah's  presence  to  His  people,  the  word  of  revelation 


LECT.  XII  MOUNT    ZIOX  357 

guiding  their  path  (xxx.  20,  21),  the  privilege  of  dwelling  un- 
harmed in  the  lire  of  Jehovah's  presence,  and  seeing  the  King 
in  His  glory,  which  belongs  to  the  man  that  walketh  in 
righteousness,  and  speaketh  upright  words;  who  despiseth 
the  gain  of  oppression,  shaking  his  hands  from  the  holding 
of  bribes,  stopping  his  ears  from  the  hearing  of  blood,  and 
shutting  his  eyes  from  looking  on  evil  (xxxiii.  14  sq.).  But 
a  practical  scheme  of  reformation,  resting  on  these  premisses, 
and  deriving  courage  from  the  fulfilment  of  Isaiah's  promise 
of  deliverance,  could  hardly  fail  to  aim  at  the  unification  of 
worship  in  Jerusalem.  Hezekiah  may  at  first  have  sought 
only  to  purge  the  sanctuaries  of  idols.  But  the  whole 
worship  of  these  shrines  was  bound  up  with  their  idolatrous 
practices,  while  the  Temple  on  Zion,  the  sanctuary  of  the  ark, 
might  well  be  purged  of  heathenish  corruptions,  and  still 
retain  in  this  ancient  Mosaic  symbol  a  mark  of  Jehovah's 
presence  palpable  enough  to  draw  the  homage  even  of  the 
masses  who  had  no  ears  for  the  lofty  teaching  of  Isaiah.  The 
history  informs  us  that  Hezekiah  actually  worked  in  this 
direction.  We  cannot  tell  the  measure  of  his  success,  for 
what  he  effected  was  presently  undone  by  Manasseh  ;  but,  at 
least,  it  was  under  him  that  the  problem  first  took  practical 
shape. 

It  is  very  noteworthy,  and,  on  the  traditional  view,  quite 
inexplicable,  that  the  Mosaic  sanctuary  of  the  ark  is  never 
mentioned  in  the  Deuteronomic  Code.  The  author  of  this 
law  occupies  the  standpoint  of  Isaiah,  to  whom  the  whole 
plateau  of  Zion  is  holy  ;  or  of  Jeremiah,  who  forbids  men  to 
search  for  the  ark  or  remake  it,  because  Jerusalem  is  the 
throne  of  Jehovah  (Jer.  iii.  16,  17).  But  he  formulates 
Isaiah's  doctrine  in  the  line  of  Hezekiah's  practical  essay  to 
suppress  the  high  places,  and  he  develops  a  scheme  for  fuller 
and  effective  execution  of  this  object  with  a  precision  of 
detail  that  shows  a  clear  sense  of  the  practical  difficulties  of 


358  THE    DEUTEROXOMIC  lect.  xii 

the  -undertaking.  It  was  no  light  thing  to  overturn  the  whole 
popular  worship  of  Judah.  It  is  highly  probable  that  Heze- 
kiah  failed  to  produce  a  permanent  result  because  he  had  not 
duly  provided  for  the  practical  difficulties  to  which  his  scheme 
would  give  rise.  The  Deuteronomic  Code  has  realised  these 
difficulties,  and  meets  the  most  serious  of  them  by  the  modi- 
fications of  the  old  law  already  discussed,  and  by  making 
special  provision  for  the  priests  of  the  suppressed  shrines. 

The  First  Legislation  has  no  law  of  priesthood,  no  pro- 
vision as  to  priestly  dues.  The  permission  of  many  altars, 
which  it  presupposes,  is  given  in  Exodus  xx.  24-26  in  a 
form  that  assumes  the  right  of  laymen  to  offer  sacrifice,^  as 
we  actually  find  them  doing  in  so  many  parts  of  the  history 
{supra,  p.  274).  Yet  a  closer  observation  shows  that  the  old 
law  presupposes  a  priesthood,  whose  business  lies  less  with 
sacrifice  than  with  the  divine  Torah  which  they  administer 

^  Exod.  XX.  26  is  addressed  not  to  the  priests  but  to  Israel  at  large,  and 
implies  that  any  Israelite  may  approach  the  altar,  Comp.  Exod.  xxi.  14, 
and  contrast  Num.  iv.  15,  xviii.  3.  That  the  old  law  allows  any  Israelite  to 
approach  the  altar  appears  most  clearly  from  the  prohibition  of  an  altar  with 
steps,  lest  the  worshipper  should  expose  his  person  to  the  holy  structure.  In 
the  case  of  the  Levitical  priests  this  danger  was  provided  against  in  another 
way,  by  the  use  of  linen  breeches  (Exod.  xxviii.  43).  In  the  case  of  the 
brazen  altar,  which  was  five  feet  high,  or  of  Solomon's  huge  altar,  ten  cubits 
in  height,  there  must  have  been  steps  of  some  kind  (Lev.  ix.  22),  and  for 
Ezekiel's  altar  (xliii.  17)  this  is  expressly  stated.  The  important  distinction 
between  the  altars  of  Exod.  xx.,  which  are  approached  by  laymen  in  their 
ordinary  dress,  and  the  brazen  altar  approached  by  priests  protected 
against  exposure  by  their  special  costume,  was  not  understood  by  the  later 
Jews,  and  consequently  it  was  held  that  the  prohibition  of  steps  {ma'aloth) 
did  not  prevent  the  use  of  an  ascent  of  some  other  kind — as,  for  example,  a 
sloping  bridge  or  mound  (see  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  on  our  passage,  and 
also  Rashi's  Commentary).  In  Herod's  Temple  tlie  altar  was  a  vast  platform 
of  unhewn  stone,  fifteen  cubits  high  and  fifty  in  length  and  breadth,  and  the 
ascent  to  it  formed  a  gentle  incline  (Joseph.  B.  J.  Lib.  v.  cap.  5,  §  6  ; 
Mishna,  Zebachim  v.,  Tamid  i.  4).  But  the  expression  ma'aloth  seems  to 
cover  all  kinds  of  ascent,  and  the  risk  of  exposing  the  person  to  the  altar 
Avould  be  unaff'ected  by  the  nature  of  the  ascent.  In  fact,  with  a  large  altar 
the  priest  could  not  put  the  blood  of  a  victim  on  the  four  horns  without 
standing  and  walking  on  the  altar  {Zebachim,  1.  c),  which  is  clearly  against 
the  spirit  of  Exod.  xx.,  except  on  the  understanding  that  that  law  does  not 
apply  to  priests  appropriately  clad  for  the  office. 


SANCTUARY  359 


ill  the  sanctuary  as  successors  of  Moses.  For  the  sanctuary 
is  the  seat  of  judgment  (supra,  p.  339),  and  this  implies  a 
qualified  personnel  through  whom  judgment  is  given.  Accord- 
ing to  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all  the  older  records  of  the 
Old  Testament,  this  priesthood,  charged  with  the  Torah  ad- 
ministered at  the  sanctuary,  is  none  other  than  the  house  of 
Levi,  the  kinsmen  or  descendants  of  Moses.  (See  especially 
Deuteronomy  xxxiii.  8  ;  1  Samuel  ii.  27  sq^.)  The  history  of 
the  Levites  after  the  Conquest  is  veiled  in  much  obscurity. 
The  principal  branch  of  the  family,  which  remained  with  the 
ark,  and  is  known  to  us  as  the  house  of  Eli,  lost  its  supre- 
macy when  Solomon  deposed  Abiathar  and  set  Zadok  in  his 
place  (1  Kings  ii.  26,  27).  In  this  event  the  author  of  Kings 
sees  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  in  1  Sam.  ii.,  which  de- 
clares that  Eli's  clan,  the  priestly  house  originally  chosen  by 
Jehovah,  shall  be  dispossessed  in  favour  of  a  faithful  priest. 
Hence  it  would  appear  that  Zadok  had  no  connection  with 
the  ancient  priesthood  of  the  ark ;  but  he  was  the  head  of  a 
body  of  Levites  (2  Samuel  xv.  24).  Another  Levitical  family 
which  claimed  direct  descent  from  Moses  held  the  priesthood 
of  the  sanctuary  of  Dan,  and  in  the  later  times  of  the  kingdom 
all  the  priests  of  local  sanctuaries  were  viewed  as  Levites. 
Whether  this  implies  that  they  were  all  lineal  descendants  of 
the  old  house  of  Levi  may  well  be  doubted.  But  in  early  times 
guilds  are  hereditary  bodies,  modified  by  a  right  of  adoption, 
and  it  was  understood  that  the  priesthood  ran  in  the  family 
to  which  Moses  belonged.  In  the  time  of  Ezekiel  the 
Jerusalem  priesthood  consisted  of  the  Levites  of  the  guild  of 
Zadok.  The  subordinate  ministers  of  the  Temple  were  not 
Levites,  but,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  foreign  janissaries, 
and  presumably  other  foreign  slaves,  the  progenitors  of  the 
Netliinim,  who  appear  in  the  list  of  returning  exiles  in 
Ezra  ii.  with  names  for  the  most  part  not  Israelite.  The 
Levites  who   are   not   Zadokites   are   by  Ezekiel  expressly 


360  THE    LEVITICAL 


identified  with  the  priests  of  the  high  places  (Ezek.  xliv.  9 
sq^.;  supra,  p.  260  and  note).  These  historical  facts — for  they 
are  no  conjecture,  but  the  express  testimony  of  the  sacred 
record — are  presupposed  in  the  Code  of  Deuteronomy.  The 
priests,  according  to  Deuteronomy  xxi.  5,  are  the  sons  of 
Levi  ;  "  for  them  hath  Jehovah  thy  God  chosen  to  minister  to 
him  and  to  bless  in  his  name,  and  according  to  their  decision 
is  every  controversy  and  every  stroke."  Deuteronomy  knows 
no  Levites  who  cannot  be  priests,  and  no  priests  who  are  not 
Levites.  The  two  ideas  are  absolutely  identical.  But  these 
Levites,  who  are  priests  of  Jehovah's  own  appointment,  were, 
in  the  period  when  the  code  was  composed,  scattered  through 
the  land  as  priests  of  the  local  sanctuaries.  They  had  no 
territorial  possessions  (Deut.  xviii.  1),  and  were  viewed  as 
G^rim,  or  strangers  under  the  protection  of  the  community 
in  the  places  where  they  sojourned  (ver.  6).  Apart  from  the 
revenues  of  the  sanctuary,  their  position  was  altogether  de- 
pendent (xiv.  27,  29,  etc.).i 

^  I  give  here  some  fuller  details  of  the  evidence  on  this  important  topic. 

1°.  Except  in  the  Levitical  legislation  and  in  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehe- 
miah,  where  the  usus  loquendi  is  conformed  to  the  final  form  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal  ordinance,  Levite  never  means  a  sacred  minister  who  is  not  a  priest, 
and  has  not  the  right  to  offer  sacrifice.  On  the  contrary,  Levite  is  regularly- 
used  as  a  priestly  title.  See  the  list  of  texts  in  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena,  3d 
ed.,  p.  147.  The  only  passage  to  the  contrary  is  1  Kings  viii.  4,  where  "  the 
priests  and  the  Levites "  appear  instead  of  "the  Levite  priests."  But  here 
the  particle  "and" — a  single  letter  in  Hebrew — appears  to  be  an  insertion  in 
accordance  with  the  later  law.  The  Chronicler  still  reads  the  verse  without 
the  "and"  (2  Chron.  v.  5).  The  older  books  know  a  distinction  between 
the  chief  priest  and  lower  priests  {e.g.  1  Sam.  ii.  35,  36),  but  all  alike  are 
priests,  that  is,  do  sacrifice,  wear  the  ephod,  etc.  The  priesthood  is  God's 
gift  to  Levi  (Deut.  x.  8,  xviii.  1,  xxi.  5,  xxxiii.  8  sq.),  and  Jeroboam's  fault, 
according  to  1  Kings  xii.  31,  was  that  he  chose  priests  who  were  not  Levites. 
From  the  first,  no  doubt,  there  must  have  been  a  difference  between  the  chief 
priest  of  the  ark  (Aaron,  Eli,  Abiathar,  Zadok)  and  his  subordinate  brethren, 
but  there  is  no  trace  of  such  a  distinction  as  is  made  in  the  Levitical  law. 

2",  Ezekiel  knows  nothing  of  Levites  who  Avere  not  priests  in  time  past  ; 
he  knows  only  the  Zadokite  Levites,  the  priests  of  the  Temple,  and  other 
Levites  who  had  formerly  been  priests,  but  are  to  be  degraded  under  the  new 
Temple,  because  they  had  ministered  in  the  idolatrous  shrines  of  the  local 
high  places.      The  usual  explanation  that  these  Levites  were  the  sons  of 


PRIESTS  361 


111  the  abolition  of  the  local  sanctuaries  it  was  necessary 
to  make  provision  for  these  Levites.  And  this  the  new  code 
does  in  two  ways  :  it  provides,  in  the  first  place,  that  any 
Levite  from  the  provinces  who  chooses  to  come  up  to  Jeru- 
salem shall  be  admitted  to  equal  privileges  with  his  brethren 
the  Levites  who  stand  there  before  Jehovah — not  to  the 
privilege  of  a  servant  in  the  sanctuary,  but  to  the  full  priest- 
hood, as  is   expressly  conveyed  by  the  terms  used.     Thus 

Ithainar  is  impossible.  For  the  guild  of  Ithamar  appears  only  after  the  Exile 
as  the  name  of  a  subordinate  family  of  priests  who  were  never  degraded  as 
the  prophet  prescribes.  j\[oreover,  Ezek.  xlviii.  11-13  clearly  declares  that 
all  Levites  but  the  Zadokites  sliall  be  degraded.  Ezekiel's  Levites  are  the 
priests  of  the  local  high  places  whom  Josiah  brought  to  Jerusalem,  and  who 
were  supported  there  on  offerings  which  the  non-priestly  Levites  under  the 
Levitical  law  had  no  right  to  eat. 

3°.  In  Deuteronomy  all  Levitical  functions  are  priestly,  and  to  these 
functions  the  whole  tribe  was  chosen  (x.  8,  xxi.  5).  The  summary  of 
Levitical  functions  in  x.  8  is  (1)  to  carry  the  ark,  which  in  old  Israel  was  a 
priestly  function  {supra,  p.  276)  ;  (2)  to  stand  before  Jehovah  and  minister  to 
Him,  an  expression  that  invariably  denotes  priesthood  proper  ;  see  especially 
Ezek.  xliv.  13,  15  ;  Jer.  xxxiii.  18,  21,  22 :  the  Levites  of  the  later  law 
minister  not  to  God  but  to  Aaron,  Num.  iii.  6  ;  (3)  to  bless  in  Jehovah's  name. 
In  the  Levitical  law  this  is  the  office  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  (Num.  vi.).  Ac- 
cordingly in  Deut.  xviii.  1  sq.,  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  has  a  claim  on  the 
altar  gifts,  the  first  fruits  and  other  priestly  offerings,  and  any  Levite  can 
actually  gain  a  share  in  these  by  going  to  Jerusalem  and  doing  priestly 
service.  In  the  Levitical  law  common  Levites  have  no  share  in  these 
revenues,  but  are  nourished  by  the  tithes  and  live  in  Levitical  cities.  There 
were  no  Levitical  cities  in  this  sense  in  the  time  of  the  Deuteronomist,  for  all 
those  mentioned  in  Joshua — in  passages  which  are  really  part  of  the  Priests' 
Code — lay  outside  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  And  Deuteronomy  knows 
nothing  of  a  Levitical  tithe,  thougli  it  allows  the  poor  Levites  a  share  in  the 
charity  tithe.  The  Levite  who  is  not  in  service  at  the  sanctuary  is  always 
represented  as  a  needy  sojourner,  without  visible  means  of  support ;  and  this 
agrees  with  Judges  xvii.  7,  8  ;  1  Sam.  ii.  36. 

That  the  priesthood  of  Dan  was  a  Levitical  priesthood  descended  from 
Moses  is  generally  admitted.      In  Judges  xviii.   30,   the  N  which  changes 

Moses  to  Manasseh  is  inserted  above  the  line  thus  :  riK'O,  Moses ;  ^t^'  D, 
Manasseh.  The  reading  of  our  English  Bible  was  therefore  a  correction  in 
the  archetype  {supra,  p.  57).  On  the  whole  subject  of  the  Levites  before  the 
Exile,  see  especially  Graf  in  Merx's  Archiv,  i. ;  Kuenen,  Theol.  Tijdschr., 
1872  ;  and  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena,  Kap.  iv.  Baudissin's  book,  Gesch.  des 
ATlichen  Priesterthums  (Leipzig,  1889),  which  seeks  to  find  an  intermediate 
position  between  the  old  view  and  the  new,  does  not  give  much  help. 


362  THE    LEVITICAL  lect.  xii 

ministering,  he  receives  for  his  support  an  equal  share  of  the 
priestly  dues  paid  in  kind  (Deut.  xviii.  6  sq.).  Those  Levites, 
on  the  other  hand,  who  remain  dispersed  through  the  pro- 
vinces receive  no  emolument  from  the  sanctuary,  and  having 
no  property  in  land  (xviii.  1),  have  a  far  from  enviable  lot, 
which  the  legislator  seeks  to  mitigate  by  recommending  them 
in  a  special  manner,  along  with  the  widow  and  the  orphan, 
to  the  charity  of  the  landed  classes  under  whose  protection 
they  dwell  (xii.  12,  18  ;  xiv.  27,  29  ;  xvi.  11,  14;  xxvi.  11 
sq.).  The  method  of  such  charity  is  to  some  extent  defined. 
Once  in  three  years  every  farmer  is  called  upon  to  store  up  a 
tithe  of  the  produce  of  his  land,  which  he  retains  in  his  own 
hands,  but  must  dispense  to  the  dependents  or  Levites  who 
come  and  ask  a  meal.  The  legislator,  it  is  plain,  aims  at 
something  like  a  voluntary  poor-rate.  The  condition  of  the 
landless  class,  with  whose  sufferings  the  prophets  are  so  often 
exercised,  had  become  a  social  problem,  owing  to  the  increase 
of  large  estates  and  other  causes  (Isa.  v.  8  ;  Micah  ii.),  and 
demanded  a  remedy  ;  but  it  is  not  proposed  to  enforce  the 
assessment  through  the  executive.  The  matter  is  left  to 
every  man's  conscience  as  a  religious  duty,  of  which  he  is 
called  to  give  account  before  Jehovah  in  the  sanctuary  (xxvi. 
12  sq.).  And  the  bond  between  charity  and  religion  is  drawn 
still  closer  by  the  provision  that  the  well-to-do  landholder, 
when  he  comes  up  to  the  sanctuary  to  make  merry  before 
God,  feastinsj  on  the  firstlingjs,  tithes,  etc.,  must  brinf;^  with 
him  his  dependents  and  the  Levite  who  is  within  his  gates, 
that  they  too  may  have  their  part  in  the  occasions  of  religious 
joy.  This  law  of  charity  appears  to  supersede  the  old  rule  of 
leaving  the  produce  of  every  field  to  the  poor  one  year  in 
seven,  which  is  obviously  a  more  primitive  and  less  practical 
arrangement.  In  place  of  this,  the  Deuteronomic  Code  re- 
quires that,  at  the  close  of  every  seven  years,  there  shall  be  a 
release  of  Hebrew  debtors  by  their  creditors  (xv.  1  sq.). 


PRIESTS  363 


I  return  to  the  Levites,  in  order  to  point  out  that  the 
comparison  of  Dent,  xviii.  with  2  Kings  xxiii.  8  sq.  effectually 
disproves  the  idea  of  some  critics  that  the  Deuteronomic  Code 
was  a  foroery  of  the  Temple  priests,  or  of  their  head,  the  high 
priest  Hilkiah.  The  proposal  to  give  the  Levites  of  the  pro- 
vinces— that  is,  the  priests  of  the  local  sanctuaries — equal 
priestly  rights  at  Jerusalem  could  not  commend  itself  to  the 
Temple  hierarchy.  And  in  this  point  Josiah  was  not  able  to 
carry  out  the  ordinances  of  the  book.  The  priests  who  were 
brought  up  to  Jerusalem  received  support  from  the  Temple 
dues,  but  were  not  permitted  to  minister  at  the  altar.  This 
proves  that  the  code  did  not  emanate  from  Hilkiah  and  the 
Zadokite  priests,  whose  class  interests  were  strong  enough  to 
frustrate  the  law  which,  on  the  theory  of  a  forgery,  was  their 
own  work. 

Whence,  then,  did  the  book  derive  the  authority  which 
made  its  discovery  the  signal  for  so  great  a  reformation  ? 
How  did  it  approve  itself  as  an  expression  of  the  Divine  will, 
first  to  Hilkiah  and  Josiah,  and  then  to  the  whole  nation  ? 
To  this  question  there  can  be  but  one  answer.  The  authority 
that  lay  behind  Deuteronomy  was  the  power  of  the  prophetic 
teaching  which  half  a  century  of  persecution  had  not  been 
able  to  suppress.  After  the  work  of  Isaiah  and  his  fellows, 
it  was  impossible  for  any  earnest  movement  of  reformation 
to  adopt  other  principles  than  those  of  the  prophetic  word  on 
which  Jehovah  Himself  had  set  His  seal  by  the  deliverance 
from  Assyria.  What  the  Deuteronomic  Code  supplied  was  a 
clear  and  practical  scheme  of  reformation  on  tlie  prophetic 
lines.  It  showed  that  it  was  possible  to  adjust  the  old 
religious  constitution  in  conformity  with  present  needs,  and 
this  was  enough  to  kindle  into  new  flame  the  slumbering  fire 
of  the  word  of  the  prophets.  The  book  became  the  pro- 
gramme of  Josiah's  reformation,  because  it  gathered  up  in 
practical   form   the   results   of  the   great    movement  under 


364  Israel's 


Hezekiah  and  Isaiah,  and  the  new  divine  teaching  then  given 
to  Israel.  It  was  of  no  consequence  to  Josiah — it  is  of 
equally  little  consequence  to  us — to  know  the  exact  date 
and  authorship  of  the  book.  Its  prophetic  doctrine,  and 
the  practical  character  of  the  scheme  which  it  set  forth — 
in  which  the  new  teaching  and  the  old  Torah  were  fused 
into  an  intelligible  unity — were  enough  to  commend  it. 

The  law  of  the  one  sanctuary,  which  is  aimed  against 
assimilation  of  Jehovah-worship  to  the  religion  of  Canaan, 
and  seeks  entirely  to  separate  the  people  from  the  worship  of 
Canaanite  shrines,  is  only  one  expression  of  a  thought  com- 
mon to  the  prophets,  that  the  unique  religion  of  Jehovah  was 
in  constant  danger  from  intercourse  between  Israel  and  the 
nations.  Isaiah  complains  that  the  people  were  always  ready 
to  "  strike  hands  with  the  children  of  strangers,"  and  recog- 
nises a  chief  danger  to  faith  in  the  policy  of  the  nobles,  who 
were  dazzled  with  the  splendour  and  courted  the  alliance  of 
the  great  empires  on  the  Nile  and  the  Tigris  (Isa.  ii.  6,  xxx. 
1  sq. ;  comp.  Hosea  vii.  8,  viii.  9,  xiv.  3).  The  vocation  of 
Israel  as  Jehovah's  people  has  no  points  of  contact  with  the 
aims  and  political  combinations  of  the  surrounding  nations, 
and  Micah  vii.  14  looks  forward  to  a  time  when  Israel  shall 
be  like  a  flock  feeding  in  solitude  in  the  woods  of  Bashan  or 
Carmel.  Isaiah  expresses  this  unique  destiny  of  Israel  in 
the  word  holiness.  Jehovah  is  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  and 
conversely  His  true  people  are  a  holy  seed.  The  notion  of 
holiness  is  primarily  connected  with  the  sanctuary  and  all 
things  pertaining  to  intercourse  with  the  deity.  The  old 
Israelite  consecrated  himself  before  a  sacrifice.  In  the  First 
Legislation  the  notion  of  Israel's  holiness  appears  only  in  the 
law  against  eating  flesh  torn  in  the  field,  of  which  the  blood 
had  not  been  duly  offered  to  God  on  His  altar.  But  Isaiah 
raises  the  notion  beyond  the  sphere  of  ritual,  and  places 
Israel's  holiness  in  direct  relation  to  the  personal  presence 


HOLINESS  365 


of  Jehovah  on  Zion,  in  the  centre  of  His  people,  as  their 
living  Sanctuary,  whose  glory  fills  all  the  earth  (Isa.  vi.  3, 
iv.  3  sq.).  The  Code  of  Deuteronomy  appropriates  this 
principle;  but  in  its  character  of  a  law,  seeking  definite 
practical  expression  for  religious  principles,  it  develops  the 
idea  of  unique  holiness  and  separation  from  the  profane 
nations  in  prohibitive  ordinances.  The  essential  object  of 
the  short  law  of  the  kingdom  (xvii.  14  sq.)  is  to  guard 
against  admixture  with  foreigners  and  participation  in 
foreign  policy.  Other  precepts  regulate  contact  with  tlie 
adjoining  nations  (xxiii.  3  sq.),  and  a  vast  number  of  statutes 
are  directed  against  the  immoralities  of  Canaanite  nature- 
worship,  which,  as  we  know  from  the  prophets  and  the 
Books  of  Kings,  had  deeply  tainted  the  service  of  Jehovah. 
Not  a  few  details,  which  to  the  modern  eye  seem  trivial 
or  irrational,  disclose  to  the  student  of  Semitic  antiquity 
an  energetic  protest  against  the  moral  grossness  of  Canaanite 
heathenism.  These  precepts  give  the  law  a  certain  air  of 
ritual  formalism,  but  the  formalism  lies  only  on  the  surface, 
and  there  is  a  moral  idea  below.  The  ceremonial  observ- 
ances of  Deuteronomy  are  directed  against  heathen  usages. 
Thus  in  Deut.  xxii.  5  women  are  forbidden  to  wear  men's 
garments  and  men  women's  garments.  This  is  not  a  mere 
rule  of  conventional  propriety,  but  is  directed  against  those 
simulated  changes  of  sex  which  occur  in  Canaanite  and  Syrian 
heathenism.  We  learn  from  Servius  that  sacrifice  was  done 
to  the  bearded  Astarte  of  Cyprus  by  men  dressed  as  women 
and  women  dressed  as  men ;  and  the  Galli,  with  their  female 
dress  and  ornaments,  are  one  of  the  most  disgusting  features 
of  the   Syrian   and   Phoenician   sanctuaries.-^     So  again  the 

1  See  Servius  on  ^n.  ii.  632  ;  Macrob.  Saturn,  iii.  8  ;  Luciaii,  De  Syria 
Dea,  §  51  ;  Euseb.  Vit.  Const,  iii.  55.  The  Galli  of  later  times  seem  to  be 
identical  with  the  vile  class  named  in  Deut.  xxiii.  17  and  the  "dogs"  of  the 
following  verse.  The  same  figurative  use  of  the  word  dog  is  found  in  the 
painted  inscription  of  Citium  ;  C.  I.  S.  No.  86. 


366  CLEAX    AND    UNCLEAN  lect.  xii 

forms  of  mourning  prohibited  in  Deut.  xiv.  1  are  ancient 
practices  which  among  the  other  Semites  have  a  religious 
significance.  They  occur  not  only  in  mourning  but  in  the 
worship  of  the  gods,  and  belong  to  the  sphere  of  heathen 
superstition.-^  Another  example  of  rules  that  have  a  deeper 
significance  than  appears  on  the  surface  is  found  in  Deut. 
xiv.  3-21,  in  the  list  of  forbidden  foods.  We  know  as  a 
fact  that  some  of  the  unclean  animals  were  sacrament- 
ally  eaten  in  certain  heathen  rituals  (Isa.  Ixvi.  17,  Ixv. 
4,  Ixvi.  3),  and  in  general  the  rules  as  to  eating  and  not 
eating  certain  kinds  of  flesh  among  the  heathen  Semites, 
as  in  other  early  nations,  were  directly  connected  with 
ancient  superstitions,  which  in  the  last  resort  must  have 
arisen  out  of  ideas  closely  analogous  to  the  totemism  of 
modern  savages.  All  primitive  people  have  rules  for- 
bidding the  use  of  certain  kinds  of  food,  out  of  religious 
scruple,  or  on  the  other  hand  they  never  eat  certain  kinds 
of  flesh  except  as  a  solemn  act  of  worship.  An  animal 
that  may  not  be  eaten,  or  that  may  be  eaten  only  in  solemn 
sacraments,  is  primarily  a  holy  animal,  and  is  often  an  object 
of  worship  ;  for  in  primitive  religion  the  ideas  holy  and  un- 
clean meet.  Now  we  learn  from  Ezekiel  viii.  10,  11  that 
one  of  the  forms  of  low  superstition  practised  at  Jerusalem 
in  the  last  days  of  the  old  kingdom  was  the  worship  of 
unclean  creatures.  This  must  be  a  relic  of  very  ancient 
heathenism,  which  had  lingered  for  centuries  in  the  obscure 
depths  of  society,  and  came  to  the  surface  again  in  the 
general  despair  of  Jehovah's  help  which  drove  Ezekiel's 
contemporaries  into  all  manner  of  degrading  superstitions. 
Some  parts  of  the  law  of  forbidden  food  in  Deuteronomy 
probably  do  no  more  than  formulate  antique  prejudices, 
which  to  the  mass  of  the  people  had  long  lost  all  religious 
significance,    but   had    come   to   be   regarded   as   points    of 

^  See  Religion  of  the  Semites,  i.  304  sqq. 


LECT.  XII  IN    DEUTERONOMY  367 

propriety  and  self-respect ;  but  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that 
other  parts  are  directly  aimed  at  heathen  sacraments,  such  as 
the  eating  of  swine's  liesh  spoken  of  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah, 
and  similar  rites  that  might  well  occur  in  connection  with  the 
superstitions  described  by  Ezekiel.  Similar  prohibitions  have 
been  enforced  in  Christian  times  on  converts  from  heathen- 
ism, in  order  to  cut  them  off  from  participation  in  idolatrous 
feasts.  Thus  Simeon  Stylites  forbade  his  Saracen  converts 
to  eat  the  flesh  of  the  camel,  which  was  the  chief  element 
in  the  sacrificial  meals  of  the  Arabs,  and  our  own  prejudice 
against  the  use  of  horse  flesh  is  a  relic  of  an  old  ecclesi- 
astical prohibition  framed  at  the  time  when  the  eating  of 
such  food  was  an  act  of  worship  to  Odin.-^ 

This  constant  polemical  reference  to  Canaanite  worship 
and  Canaanite  morality  gives  to  the  element  of  ritual  and 
forms  of  worship  a  much  larger  place  in  Deuteronomy  than 
these  things  hold  in  the  First  Legislation.  In  points  of  civil 
order  the  new  law  still  moves  on  the  old  lines.  Its  object  is 
not  legislative  innovation,  but  to  bring  the  old  consuetudinary 
law  into  relation  to  the  fundamental  principle  that  Jehovah 
is  Israel's  Lawgiver,  and  that  all  social  order  exists  under 
His  sanction. 

^  This  subject  is  fully  treated  in  my  Religion  of  the  Semites,  vol.  i.  (1889), 
to  which  I  refer  for  details  as  to  ancient  laws  of  forbidden  meats.  Two  of  the 
prohibitions  in  Deuteronomy  (xiv.  21)  rest  on  the  older  legislation  ;  but  these 
have  a  character  of  their  own.  The  first  of  them  is  the  law  against  eating 
carrion  (Exod.  xxii.  31),  w^hich  evidently  rests  on  the  old  rule  that  all  lawful 
slaughter  must  be  sacrificial,  but  is  equally  consistent  with  the  Deuteronomic 
modification  of  that  rule  (Deut.  xii.  15).  The  other  is  the  very  curious  law 
against  seething  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk,  i.e.  in  goats'  milk,  on  which  see 
op.  cit.  p.  204  note.  From  the  occurrence  in  Deut.  xiv.  12-19  of  some  charac- 
teristic priestly  expressions  Kuenen  infers  that  this  law  was  derived  by  the 
Deuteronomist  from  the  oral  Torah  of  the  priests  (com p.  xxiv.  8)  ;  but  it  is  also 
possible  that  these  details  were  added  later,  and  that  the  original  law  confined 
itself  to  allowing  all  clean  birds  to  be  eaten  (vcr.  11),  thus  glauciug  obli(iuely 
at  the  rule  of  the  Astarte-worshippers  of  Canaan,  who  would  not  eat  the  dove 
{op.  cit.  p.  202  note).  The  permission  to  eat  all  fish  having  scales  and  fins 
also  stands  in  contrast  to  a  widespread  superstition  of  the  Syrian  Astarte- 
worshippers  (op.  cit.  p.  430). 


368  CIVIL    LAWS    OF  LECT.  xii 

Thus  we  still  find  some  details  which  bear  the  stamp  of 
primeval  Semitic  culture.  In  chap.  xxi.  10  sq.  we  have 
marriage  by  capture  as  it  was  practised  by  the  Arabs  before 
Mohammed,  and  even  the  detail  as  to  the  paring  of  the  nails 
of  the  captive  before  marriage  is  identical  with  one  of  the  old 
Arabic  methods  of  terminating  the  widow's  period  of  seclusion 
and  setting  her  free  to  marry  again. 

But  in  general  we  see  that  the  civil  laws  of  Deuteronomy 
belong  to  a  later  stage  of  society  than  the  First  Legislation. 
For  example,  the  law  of  retaliation,  which  has  so  large  a 
range  in  the  First  Legislation,  is  prescribed  in  Deut.  xix.  16 
sq.  only  for  the  case  of  false  witness.^  And  with  this  goes  the 
introduction  of  a  new  punishment,  which,  in  the  old  law,  was 
confined  to  slaves.  A  man  who  injures  another  may  be 
brought  before  the  judge  and  sentenced  to  the  bastinado  (xxv. 
1  sq.).  The  introduction  of  this  degrading  punishment  in  the 
case  of  freemen  indicates  a  change  in  social  feeling.  Among 
the  Bedouins  no  sheikh  would  dare  to  flog  a  man,  for  he 
would  thereby  bring  himself  under  the  law  of  retaliation ;  and 
so  it  was  in  Israel  in  the  old  time.  But  Eastern  kingship 
breaks  down  this  sense  of  personal  independence,  while,  at 
the  same  time,  it  modifies  the  strict  law  of  revenge.  In 
general,  the  executive  system  of  Deuteronomy  is  more  ad- 
vanced. The  sanctuary  is  still  the  highest  seat  of  law,  but 
the  priest  is  now  associated  with  a  supreme  civil  judge  (xvii. 
9,  12),  who  seems  to  be  identical  with  the  king ;  and  even 
the  subordinate  judges  are  not  merely  the  natural  sheikhs,  or 
elders  of  the  local  communities,  but  include  officers  appointed 
with  national  authority  (xvi.  18).  Again,  the  law  of  manu- 
mission undergoes  an  important  modification.  On  the  old 
law  a  father  could  sell  his  daughter  as  a  slave,  and  the  bond- 
woman was  absolute  property  ;  the  master  could  wed  her  to 

^  It  may  indeed  be  inferred  from  this  passage  that  tlie  talio  existed  in 
theory  in  other  cases  also,  but  was  not  commonly  enforced  in  practice. 


DEUTERONOMY  369 


one  of  bis  servants,  and  retain  her  when  the  servant  left.  In 
Deuteronomy  all  this  has  disappeared,  and  a  Hebrew  woman 
has  a  right  to  manumission  after  seven  years,  like  a  man  (xv. 
12, 17).  A  similar  advance  appears  in  the  change  on  the  law 
of  seduction.  By  the  old  law  this  case  was  treated  as  one  of 
pecuniary  loss  to  the  father,  who  must  be  compensated  by  the 
seducer  purchasing  the  damsel  as  wife  for  the  full  price 
(inohar)  of  a  virgin.  In  Deuteronomy  the  law  is  removed 
from  among  the  laws  of  property  to  laws  of  moral  purity,  and 
the  payment  of  full  moliar  is  changed  to  a  fixed  fine  (Exod. 
xxii.  16,  17 ;  Deut.  xxii.  28  sq.). 

In  other  cases  the  new  code  softens  the  rudeness  of  ancient 
custom.  In  Arabic  warfare  the  destruction  of  an  enemy's 
palm-groves  is  a  favourite  exploit,  and  fertile  lands  are  thus 
often  reduced  to  desert.  In  2  Kings  iii.  19  we  find  that  the 
same  practice  was  enjoined  on  Israel  by  the  prophet  Elisha 
in  war  with  Moab ;  every  good  tree  was  to  be  cut  down.  But 
Deut.  XX.  19  sc[.  forbids  this  barbarous  destruction  of  fruit- 
trees.  Still  more  remarkable  is  the  law  of  Deut.  xxii.  30.  It 
was  a  custom  among  many  of  the  ancient  Arabs  that  a  man 
took  possession  of  his  father's  wives  along  with  the  property 
(his  own  mother,  of  course,  excepted).  The  only  law  of  for- 
bidden degrees  in  the  Deuteronomic  Code  is  directed  against 
this  practice,  which  Ezekiel  xxii.  10  mentions  as  still  current 
in  Jerusalem.  But  in  early  times  such  marriages  were  made 
without  offence.  The  Israelites  understood  Absalom's  appro- 
priation of  David's  secondary  wives  as  a  formal  way  of 
declaring  that  his  father  was  dead  to  him,  and  that  he  served 
himself  his  heir  (2  Sam.  xvi.) ;  and  when  Adonijah  asked  the 
liand  of  Abishag,  Solomon  understood  him  as  claiming  the 
inheritance  (1  Kings  ii.  22).  The  same  custom  explains  the 
anger  of  Ishbosheth  at  Abner  (2  Sam.  iii.  7).  The  new  code, 
you  perceive,  marks  a  growth  in  morality  and  refinement.  It 
is  still  no  ideal  law  fit  for  all  time,  but  a  practical  code 

24 


370  RITUAL    IN  LECT.  XII 

largely  incorporating  elements  of  actual  custom.  But  the 
growth  of  custom  and  usage  is  on  the  whole  upward,  and 
ancient  social  usages  which  survived  for  many  centuries 
after  the  age  of  Josiah  among  the  heathen  of  Arabia  and 
Syria  already  lie  behind  the  Deuteronomic  Code.  With  all 
the  hardness  of  Israel's  heart,  the  religion  of  Jehovah  had 
proved  itself  in  its  influence  on  the  nation  a  better  religion 
than  that  of  the  Baalim.^ 

From  Josiah's  covenant  to  the  fall  of  the  Jewish  state  the 
Code  of  Deuteronomy  had  but  a  generation  to  run.  Even  in 
this  short  time  it  appeared  that  the  reformation  had  not 
accomplished  its  task,  and  that  the  introduction  of  the  written 
law  was  not  enough  to  avert  the  judgment  wdiich  the  prophets 
had  declared  inevitable  for  the  purification  of  the  nation. 
The  crusade  against  the  high  places  was  most  permanent  in 
its  results.  In  the  time  of  Jeremiah  popular  superstition 
clung  to  the  Temple  as  it  had  formerly  clung  to  the  high 
places,  and  in  the  Temple  the  populace  and  the  false  prophets 
found  the  pledge  that  Jehovah  could  never  forsake  His 
nation.  This  fact  is  easily  understood.  The  prophetic  ideas 
of  Isaiah,  which  were  the  real  spring  of  the  Deuteronomic 
reformation,  had  never  been  spiritually  grasped  by  the  mass 

1  See  on  marriage  with  a  stepmother  my  KinsMp,  p.  86  sqq.  It  is  not,  of 
course,  to  be  supposed  that  no  other  rule  of  forbidden  degrees  was  recognised, 
but  only  that  no  other  case  required  to  be  provided  against.  Yet  marriage 
with  a  half-sister  not  uterine  was  allowed  in  old  Israel,  and  not  unknown  in 
the  days  of  Ezekiel  {supra,  p.  280),  though  it  is  condemned  by  him  and  in 
the  "Framework"  of  Deuteronomy  (chap,  xxvii.  22),  Why  does  the  code 
not  mention  this  case,  which  was  certainly  not  to  be  passed  over  in  silence  ? 
In  such  a  case  silence  seems  to  imply  consent ;  and  this  may  supply  an 
additional  argument  for  assigning  to  Deut.  xxvii.  a  later  date  than  the  code 
of  chaps,  xii.-xxvi.  The  advance  in  the  laws  of  forbidden  degrees  from  the 
Deuteronomic  Code  through  the  "Framework"  (Deut.  xxvii.)  and  Ezekiel 
(xxii.  10,  11)  to  the  full  Levitical  law  is  one  of  the  clearest  proofs  of  the  true 
order  of  succession  in  the  Pentateuchal  laws.  Marriage  with  a  half-sister  was 
known  among  the  Phcenicians  in  the  time  of  Achilles  Tatius,  and  indeed 
forbidden  marriages,  including  that  with  a  father's  wife,  seem  to  have  been 
practised  pretty  openly  in  Roman  Syria  down  to  the  fifth  Christian  century. 
See  Bruns  and  Sachau,  Syrisch-Komischcs  Jiechtsbuch,  p.  30  (Leipzig,  1880). 


DEUTERONOMY  371 


of  the  people,  though  the  eclat  attending  the  overthrow  of 
Sennacherib  had  given  them  a  certain  currency.  The  con- 
ception of  Jehovah's  throne  on  Zion  was  materialised  in  the 
Temple,  and  the  moral  conditions  of  acceptance  with  the  King 
of  Zion,  on  which  Isaiah  laid  so  much  weight,  w^ere  forgotten. 
Jehovah  received  ritual  homage  in  lieu  of  moral  obedience ; 
and  Jeremiah  has  again  occasion  to  declare  that  the  latter 
alone  is  the  positive  content  of  the  divine  Torah,  and  that  a 
law  of  sacrifice  is  no  part  of  the  original  covenant  with 
Israel.  In  speaking  thus  the  prophet  does  not  separate  him- 
self from  the  Deuteronomic  law  ;  for  the  moral  precepts  of 
that  code — as,  for  example,  the  Deuteronomic  form  of  the 
law  of  manumission  (Jer.  xxxiv.  13-16) — he  accepts  as  part 
of  the  covenant  of  the  Exodus.  To  Jeremiah,  therefore,  the 
Code  of  Deuteronomy  does  not  appear  in  the  light  of  a  positive 
law  of  sacrifice ;  and  this  judgment  is  undoubtedly  correct. 
The  ritual  details  of  Deuteronomy  are  directed  against 
heathen  worship ;  they  are  negative,  not  positive.  In  the 
matter  of  sacrifice  and  festal  observances  the  new  code  simply 
diverts  the  old  homage  of  Israel  from  the  local  sanctuaries  to 
the  central  shrine,  and  all  material  offerings  are  summed  up 
under  the  principles  of  gladness  before  Jehovah  at  the  great 
agricultural  feasts,  and  of  homage  paid  to  Him  in  acknow- 
ledgment that  the  good  things  of  the  land  of  Canaan  are 
His  gift  (xxvi.  10).  The  firstlings,  first  fruits,  and  so  forth 
remain  on  their  old  footing  as  natural  expressions  of  devotion, 
which  did  not  begin  with  the  Exodus  and  are  not  peculiar  to 
Israel.  Even  the  festal  sacrifices  retain  the  character  of  "  a 
voluntary  tribute"  (Deut.  xvi.  10),  and  the  paschal  victim 
itself  may  be  chosen  indifferently  from  the  flock  or  the  herd 
(xvi.  2),  and  is  still,  according  to  the  Hebrew  of  xvi.  7,  pre- 
sumed to  be  boiled,  not  roasted,  as  is  the  case  in  all  old 
sacrifices  of  which  the  history  speaks.  Deuteronomy  knows 
nothing  of  a  sacrificial  priestly  Torah,  though  it  refers  the 


372  DEUTERONOMY   AND  lect.  xii 

people  to  the  Torali  of  the  priests  on  the  subject  of  leprosy 
(xxiv.  8),  and  acknowledges  their  authority  as  judges  in  law- 
suits. In  the  Deuteronomic  Code  the  idea  of  sin  is  never 
connected  with  matters  of  ritual.  A  sin  means  a  crime,  an 
offence  to  law  and  justice  (xix.  15,  xxi.  22,  xxii.  26,  xxiv.  16), 
an  act  of  heathenism  (xx.  18),  a  breach  of  faith  towards 
Jehovah  (xxiii.  21,  22),  or  a  lack  of  kindliness  to  the  poor 
(xxiv.  15).  And  such  offences  are  expiated,  not  by  sacrifice, 
but  by  punishment  at  the  hand  of  man  or  God.  This  moral 
side  of  the  law,  which  exactly  corresponds  to  prophetic  teach- 
ing, continued  to  be  neglected  in  Judah.  Oppression,  blood- 
shed, impurity,  idolatr}^,  filled  the  land  ;  and  for  these  things 
Jeremiah  threatens  a  judgment,  which  the  Temple  and  its 
ritual  can  do  nothing  to  avert  (Jer.  vii.). 

In  all  this  Deuteronomy  and  Jeremiah  alike  still  stand 
outside  the  priestly  Torah.  As  far  as  Deuteronomy  goes,  this 
is  usually  explained  by  saying  that  it  is  a  law  for  the  people, 
and  does  not  take  up  points  of  ritual  which  specially  belonged 
to  the  priests.  But  the  code,  which  refers  to  the  priestly  law 
of  leprosy,  says  nothing  of  ordinances  of  ritual  atonement  and 
stated  sacrifice,  and  Jeremiah  denies  in  express  terms  that  a 
law  of  sacrifice  forms  any  part  of  the  divine  commands  to 
Israel.  The  priestly  and  prophetic  Torahs  are  not  yet  absorbed 
into  one  system. 

Nevertheless  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  there  was  at  this 
time  a  ritual  Torah  in  the  hands  of  the  priests,  containing 
elements  which  the  prophets  and  the  old  codes  pass  by.  In 
the  time  of  Ahaz  there  was  a  daily  burnt  offering  in  the 
morning,  a  stated  cereal  offering  in  the  evening  (2  Kings  xvi. 
15).  There  was  also  an  atoning  ritual.  In  the  time  of 
Jehoash  the  atonements  paid  to  the  priests  were  pecuniary — 
a  common  enousjh  thim?  in  ancient  times.  But  atoninsj 
sacrifice  was  also  of  ancient  standing.  It  occurs  in  1  Sam.  iii. 
14, — "  The  guilt  of  the  house  of  Eli  shall  not  be  wiped  out  by 


LECT.  XII  THE    PKIESTLY    TOR  AH  373 

sacrifice  or  oblation  for  ever."  Th^  idea  of  atonement  in  the 
sacrificial  blood  must  be  very  ancient,  and  a  trace  of  it  is  found 
in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  (xxi.  4)  in  the  curious  ordinance 
Avliich  provides  for  the  atonement  of  the  blood  of  untraced 
homicide  by  the  slaughter  of  a  heifer.^  Along  with  these 
things  we  find  ancient  ordinances  of  ceremonial  holiness  in 
the  sanctuary  at  Nob  (1  Sam.  xxi.  4),  and  all  this  necessarily 
supposes  a  ritual  law,  the  property  of  the  priests.  Only,  we 
have  already  seen  that  the  details  still  preserved  to  us  of  the 
Temple  ritual  are  not  identical  with  tlie  full  Levitical  system. 
They  contained  many  germs  of  that  system,  but  they  also 
contained  much  that  was  radically  different.  And  in  par- 
ticular the  Temple  worship  itself  was  not  stringently  differ- 
entiated from  everything  heathenish,  as  appears  with  the 
utmost  clearness  in  the  admission  of  uncircumcised  foreigners 
to  certain  ministerial  functions,  in  the  easy  way  in  which 
Isaiah's  friend  Urijah  accepted  the  foreign  innovations  of 
King  Ahaz,  and  in  the  fact  that  prophets  whom  Jeremiah 
regards  as  heathen  diviners  still  continued  to  be  attached  to 
the  Temple  up  to  the  last  days  of  the  state,  while  worshippers 
from  Samaria  made  pilgrimages  to  Jerusalem  with  heathenish 
ceremonies  expressly  forbidden  in  Deuteronomy  as  well  as  in 
Leviticus  (Jer.  xli.  5  ;  Lev.  xix.  27,  28 ;  Dent.  xiv.  1  ;  Isa. 
XV.  2).  We  see,  then,  that  even  Josiah's  reformation  left 
many  things  in  the  Temple  which  savoured  of  heathenism, 
and  the  presence  of  the  priests  of  the  high  places  was  little 
calculated  to  improve  the  spirituality  of  the  observances  of 
Jehovah's  house.  In  all  this  there  ^vas  a  manifest  danger  to 
true  religion.  If  ritual  and  sacrifice  were  to  continue  at  all, 
it  was  highly  desirable  that  some  order  should  be  taken  witli 
the  priestly  ritual,  and  an  attempt  made  to  reorganise  it  in 
conformity  w^ith  the  proplietic  conception  of  Jehovah's  moral 

^  Analof,Mes  to  this  peculiar  form  of  atonement  are  given  in  Religion  of  the 
Semites,  p.  351. 


374  TOR  AH    OF 


LECT.  XII 


holiness.  Eut  no  effort  to  complete  Josiah's  work  in  this 
direction  seems  to  have  been  made  in  the  last  troublous 
years  of  Jerusalem.  On  the  contrary,  Ezekiel  describes  the 
grossest  heathenism  as  practised  at  the  Temple,  and  hardly 
without  the  countenance  of  the  priests  (Ezek.  viii.). 

The  Temple  and  its  worship  fell  with  the  destruction  of 
the  city.  Fourteen  years  later,  Ezekiel,  dwelling  in  captivity, 
had  a  vision  of  a  new  Temple,  a  place  of  worship  for  repentant 
Israel,  and  heard  a  voice  commanding  him  to  lay  before  the 
people  a  pattern  of  remodelled  worship.  "  If  they  be 
ashamed  of  all  that  they  have  done,  shew  them  the  form  of 
the  house  .  .  .  and  all  its  ordinances,  and  all  the  Torahs 
thereof:  and  write  them  before  them  that  they  may  keep  all 
the  form  thereof,  and  all  the  ordinances  thereof,  and  do 
them"  (Ezek.  xliii.  10,  11). 

A  great  mystery  has  been  made  of  this  law  of  Ezekiel,  but 
the  prophet  himself  makes  none.  He  says  in  the  clearest 
words  that  the  revelation  is  a  sketch  of  ritual  for  the  period 
of  restoration,  and  again  and  again  he  places  his  new  ordin- 
ances in  contrast  with  the  actual  corrupt  usage  of  the  first 
Temple  (xliii.  7,  xliv.  5  sg[.,  xlv.  8,  9).  He  makes  no  appeal 
to  a  previous  law  of  ritual.  The  whole  scheme  of  a  w^ritten 
law  of  the  house  is  new,  and  so  Ezekiel  only  confirms  Jere- 
miah, who  knew  no  divine  law  of  sacrifice  under  the  Eirst 
Temple.  It  is  needless  to  rehearse  more  than  the  chief  points 
of  Ezekiel's  legislation.  The  first  that  strikes  us  is  the  de- 
gradation of  the  Levites.  The  ministers  of  the  old  Temple, 
he  tells  us,  were  uncircumcised  foreigners,  whose  presence  was 
an  insult  to  Jehovah's  sanctuary.  Such  men  shall  no  more 
enter  the  house,  but  in  their  place  shall  come  the  Levites  not 
of  the  house  of  Zadok,  who  are  to  be  degraded  from  the  priest- 
hood because  they  officiated  in  old  Israel  before  the  idolatrous 
shrines  (xliv.  5  sq).  This  one  point  is  sufficient  to  fix  the 
date  of  the  Levitical  law  as  later  than  Ezekiel.     In  all  the 


EZEKIEL  375 


earlier  history,  and  in  the  Code  of  Deuteronomy,  a  Levite  is 
a  priest,  or  at  least  qualified  to  assume  priestly  functions ; 
and  even  in  Josiali's  reformation  the  Levite  priests  of  the 
high  places  received  a  modified  priestly  status  at  Jerusalem. 
■  Ezekiel  knows  that  it  has  been  so  in  the  past ;  but  he 
declares  that  it  shall  be  otherwise  in  the  future,  as  a  punish- 
ment for  the  offence  of  ministering  at  the  idolatrous  altars. 
He  kno\vs  nothing  of  an  earlier  law,  in  which  priests  and 
Levites  are  already  distinguished,  in  which  the  office  of  Levite 
is  itself  a  high  privilege  (Num.  xvi.  9). 

A  second  point  in  Ezekiel's  law  is  a  provision  for  stated 
and  regular  sacrifices.  These  sacrifices  are  to  be  provided  by 
the  prince,  who  in  turn  is  to  receive  from  the  people  no 
arbitrary  tax,  but  a  fixed  tribute  in  kind  upon  all  agricultural 
produce  and  flocks.  Here  again  we  see  a  reference  to  pre- 
exilic  practice,  when  the  Temple  was  essentially  the  king's 
sanctuary,  and  the  stated  offerings  were  his  gift.  In  the  old 
codes  the  people  at  large  are  under  no  obligation  to  do  stated 
sacrifice.  That  was  the  king's  voluntary  offering,  and  so  it 
was  at  first  after  the  Exile,  at  least  in  theory.  The  early 
decrees  of  Persian  monarchs  in  favour  of  the  Jews  provide 
for  regular  sacrifice  at  the  king's  expense  (Ezra  vi.  9,  vii. 
17)  ;-^  and  only  at  the  convocation  of  Nehemiah  do  the  people 
agree  to  defray  the  stated  offering  by  a  voluntary  poll-tax  of 
a  third  of  a  shekel  (Neh.  x.  32).  It  is  disputed  whether,  in 
Exod.  XXX.  16,  "the  service  of  the  tabernacle,"  defrayed  by 
the  fixed  tribute  of  half  a  shekel,  refers  to  the  continual  sacri- 
fices. If  it  does  so,  this  law  was  still  unknown  to  Nehemiah, 
and  must  be  a  late  addition  to  the  Pentateuch.  If  it  does  not, 
it  is  still  impossible  that  the  costly  Levitical  ordinance  of  stated 

^  The  history  in  Ezra-Nehemiah  makes  it  clear  that  these  decrees  had 
little  practical  result ;  and  it  has  been  questioned  whether  in  their  present 
form  they  are  perfectly  authentic.  But  they  show  at  least  that  the  theory 
of  the  Jews  was  that  public  sacrifices  should  be  defrayed  by  the  supreme  civil 
authority. 


376  TOEAH    OF 


offerings  could  have  preceded  the  existence  of  a  provision  for 
suppl}dng  them.  Again  we  are  brought  back  to  Jeremiah's 
words.  The  stated  sacrifices  were  not  prescribed  in  the 
wilderness. 

A  third  point  in  Ezekiel's  law  is  the  prominence  given  to 
the  sin  offering  and  atoning  ritual.  The  altar  must  be  purged 
with  sin  offerings  for  seven  consecutive  days  before  burnt 
sacrifices  are  acceptably  offered  on  it  (xliii.  18  sq.).  The 
Levitical  law  (Exod.  xxix.  36,  37)  prescribes  a  similar  cere- 
mony, but  with  more  costly  victims.  At  the  dedication  of 
Solomon's  Temple,  on  the  contrary  (1  Kings  viii.  62),  the 
altar  is  at  once  assumed  to  be  fit  for  use,  in  accordance  with 
Exod.  XX.  24,  and  with  all  the  early  cases  of  altar-building 
outside  the  Pentateuch.  But,  besides  this  first  expiatory 
ceremonial,  Ezekiel  appoints  two  atoning  services  yearly,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  first  and  the  seventh  month  (xlv.  18,  20, 
LXX.),  to  purge  the  house.  This  is  the  first  appearance,  out- 
side of  the  Levitical  code,  of  anything  corresponding  to  the 
great  day  of  atonement  in  the  seventh  month,  and  it  is  plain 
that  the  simple  service  in  Ezekiel  is  still  far  short  of  that 
solemn  ceremony.  The  day  of  atonement  w^as  also  a  fast  day. 
But  in  Zech.  vii.  5,  viii.  19,  the  fast  of  the  seventh  month  is 
alluded  to  as  one  of  the  four  fasts  commemorating  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  which  had  been  practised  for  the  last 
seventy  years.  The  fast  of  the  seventh  month  was  not  yet 
united  with  the  "  purging  of  the  house  "  ordained  by  Ezekiel. 
Even  in  the  great  convocation  of  Neh.  viii.-x.,  where  we  have 
a  record  of  proceedings  from  the  first  day  of  the  seventh 
month  onwards  to  the  twenty-fourth,  there  is  no  mention  of 
the  day  of  expiation  on  the  tenth,  which  thus  appears  as  the 
very  last  stone  in  the  ritual  edifice. 

I  pass  over  other  features  of  Ezekiel's  legislation.  The 
detailed  proof  that  in  every  point  Ezekiel's  Torah  prepares 
the  way  for  the  Levitical  law,  but  represents   a  more  ele- 


LECT.  XII  EZEKIEL  377 

meiitaiy  ritual,  may  be  read  in  the  text  itself  with  the  aid  of 
Sniend's  Commentary.  The  whole  scheme  presents  itself 
with  absolute  clearness  as  a  first  sketch  of  a  written  priestly 
Torah,  resting  not  on  the  law  of  Moses  but  on  old  priestly 
usage,  and  reshaped  so  as  to  bring  the  ordinances  of  the  house 
into  due  conformity  with  the  holiness  of  Jehovah  in  the  sense 
of  the  prophets  and  the  Deuteronomic  Code.  The  thought 
that  underlies  Ezekiel's  code  is  clearly  brought  out  in  xliii.  7, 
xliv.  6  sqq.  To  Ezekiel,  who  is  himself  a  priest,  the  wdiore- 
dom  of  Israel,  their  foul  departure  from  Jehovah  after  filthy 
idols,  appears  in  a  peculiarly  painful  light  in  connection  with 
the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  the  throne  of  Jehovah,  the  place 
of  the  soles  of  His  feet,  where  He  dwells  in  the  midst  of 
Israel  for  ever.  In  time  past  the  people  of  Israel  have  defiled 
Jehovah's  name  by  their  abominations,  and  for  this  they  have 
suffered  His  wrath.  The  new  law  is  a  gift  to  the  people  on 
their  repentance — a  scheme  to  protect  them  from  again  falling 
into  like  sins.  The  unregulated  character  of  the  old  service 
gave  room  for  the  introduction  of  heathen  abominations. 
The  new  service  shall  be  reduced  to  a  divine  rule,  leaving  no 
door  for  what  is  unholy.  But  so  long  as  worship  takes  place 
with  material  ceremonies  in  an  earthly  sanctuary,  the  idea  of 
holiness  cannot  be  divested  of  a  material  element.  From  the 
earliest  times  the  sanctity  of  God's  worship  had  regard  to 
provisions  of  physical  holiness,  especially  to  lustrations  and 
rules  of  cleanness  and  uncleanness,  which,  in  their  origin, 
were  not  different  in  principle  from  the  similar  rules  found 
among  all  ancient  nations,  but  which  nevertheless  could  be 
used,  as  we  find  them  used  in  Deuteronomy,  to  furnish  a 
barrier  against  certain  forms  of  foreign  heathenism.  From  the 
priestly  point  of  view,  material  and  moral  observances  of 
sanctity  run  into  one.  Ezekiel  finds  equal  fault  with 
idolatry  in  the  Temple  and  with  the  profanation  of  its 
plateau  by  the  sepulcln^es  of  the  kings  (xliii.  7).     And  so  his 


378  RELIGIOX    DIVORCED  lect.  xii 

ritual,  though  its  fundamental  idea  is  moral,  branches  out 
into  a  variety  of  ordinances  which  from  our  modern  point  of 
view  seem  merely  formal,  but  which  were  yet  inevitable 
unless  the  principle  of  sacrifice  and  an  earthly  sanctuary 
was  to  be  altogether  superseded.  If  the  material  sanctuary 
was  to  be  preserved  at  all,  the  symbolic  observances  of  its 
holiness  must  be  made  stringent,  and  to  this  end  the  new 
ordinance  of  the  Levites  and  Ezekiel's  other  provisions  were 
altogether  suitable. 

In  proportion,  now,  as  the  whole  theory  of  worship  is 
remodelled  and  reduced  to  rule  on  the  scheme  of  an  exclusive 
sanctity,  which  presents,  so  to  speak,  an  armed  front  to 
every  abomination  of  impure  heathenism,  the  ritual  becomes 
abstract,  and  the  services  remote  from  ordinary  life.  In  the 
old  worship  all  was  spontaneous.  It  was  as  natural  for  an 
Israelite  to  worship  Jehovah  as  for  a  Moabite  to  worship 
Chemosh.  To  worship  God  was  a  holiday,  an  occasion  of 
feasting.  Eeligion,  in  its  sacrificial  form,  was  a  part  of 
common  life,  which  had  its  well-known  and  established 
forms,  but  which  no  one  deemed  it  necessary  to  reduce  to 
written  rules.  Even  in  Deuteronomy  this  view  predomi- 
nates. The  sacrificial  feasts  are  still  the  consecration  of 
natural  occasions  of  joy ;  men  eat,  drink,  and  make  merry 
before  God,  The  sense  of  God's  favour,  not  the  sense  of  sin, 
is  what  rules  at  the  sanctuary.  But  the  unification  of  the 
sanctuary  already  tended  to  break  up  this  old  type  of  religion. 
Worship  ceased  to  be  an  everyday  thing,  and  so  it  ceased  to 
be  the  expression  of  everyday  religion.  In  Ezekiel  this 
change  has  produced  its  natural  result  in  a  change  of  the 
whole  standpoint  from  which  he  views  the  service  of  the 
Temple.  The  offerings  of  individuals  are  no  longer  the  chief 
reason  for  which  the  Temple  exists.  All  weight  lies  on  the 
stated  service,  which  the  prince  provides  out  of  national 
funds,  and  which  is,  as  it  were,  the  representative  service  of 


FROM   SACRIFICE  379 


Israel.  The  individual  Israelite  who,  in  the  old  law, 
stood  at  the  altar  himself  and  brought  his  own  victim, 
is  now  separated  from  it,  not  only  by  the  double  cordon  of 
priests  and  Levites,  but  by  the  fact  that  his  personal 
offering  is  thrown  into  the  background  by  the  stated  national 
sacrifice. 

The  whole  tendency  of  this  is  to  make  personal  religion 
more  and  more  independent  of  offerings.  The  emotion  with 
which  the  worshipper  approaches  the  second  Temple,  as  re- 
corded in  the  Psalter,  has  little  to  do  w^ith  sacrifice,  but  rests 
rather  on  the  fact  that  the  whole  w^ondrous  history  of 
Jehovah's  grace  to  Israel  is  vividly  and  personally  realised 
as  he  stands  amidst  the  festal  crowd  at  the  ancient  seat  of 
God's  throne,  and  adds  his  voice  to  the  sw^elling  song  of 
praise.  The  daily  religion  of  the  Eestoration  found  new^ 
forms.  The  devotional  study  of  the  Scriptures,  the  syna- 
gogue, the  practice  of  prayer  elsewhere  than  before  the  altar, 
were  all  independent  of  the  old  idea  of  worship,  and  naturally 
prepared  the  way  for  the  New  Testament.  The  narrowing  of 
the  privilege  of  access  to  God  at  the  altar  would  have  been 
a  retrograde  step  if  altar- worship  had  still  remained  the  form 
of  all  religion.  But  this  was  not  so,  and  therefore  the  new 
ritual  was  a  practical  means  of  separating  personal  religion 
from  forms  destined  soon  to  pass  away.  The  very  features 
of  the  Levitical  ordinances  which  seem  most  inconsistent 
with  spirituality,  if  we  place  them  in  the  days  of  Moses, 
when  all  religion  took  shape  before  the  altar,  appear  in  a 
very  different  light  in  the  age  after  the  Exile,  when  the  non- 
ritual  religion  of  the  prophets  went  side  by  side  with  the 
Law,  and  supplied  daily  nourishment  to  the  spiritual  life  of 
those  who  were  far  from  the  sanctuary. 

With  all  this  there  went  another  change  not  less  im- 
portant. In  the  old  ritual,  sacrifice  and  offering  w^ere 
essentially  an  expression  of  homage  (in  the  presentation  of 


380  ATOXIXG    RITUAL 


the  altar  gift),  and  an  act  of  communion  (in  the  sacrificial 
feast  that  followed),  while  the  element  of  atonement  for  sin 
held  a  very  subsidiary  place  in  ordinary  acts  of  worship. 
But  the  ideas  of  sacrificial  homage  and  communion  lost  great 
part  of  their  force  when  the  sacrifices  of  the  sanctuary  were 
so  much  divorced  from  individual  life,  and  became  a  sort  of 
abstract  representative  service.  In  Ezekiel,  and  still  more 
in  the  Levitical  legislation,  the  element  of  atonement  takes  a 
foremost  place.  The  sense  of  sin  had  grown  deeper  under 
the  teaching  of  the  prophets,  and  amidst  the  proofs  of 
Jehovah's  anger  that  darkened  the  last  days  of  the  Jewish 
state.  Sin  and  forgiveness  were  the  main  themes  of  pro- 
phetic discourse.  The  problem  of  acceptance  with  God 
exercised  every  thoughtful  mind,  as  we  see  not  only  from 
the  Psalms  and  the  prophets  of  the  Exile  and  Eestoration, 
but  above  all  from  the  Book  of  Job,  which  is  certainly  later 
than  the  time  of  Jeremiah.  The  acceptance  of  the  worship 
of  the  sanctuary  had  always  been  regarded  as  the  visible 
sacrament  of  Jehovah's  acceptance  of  the  worshipper,  "  when 
He  came  to  him  and  blessed  him."  And  now,  more  than  in 
any  former  time,  the  first  point  in  acceptance  was  felt  to  be 
the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  the  weightiest  element  in  the 
ritual  was  that  which  symbolised  the  atonement  or  "  wiping 
out"  of  iniquity.  The  details  of  this  symbolism  cannot 
occupy  us  here.  In  point  of  form  the  atoning  ordinances  of 
the  Levitical  law  are  not  essentially  different  from  the  expia- 
tory rites  of  other  ancient  nations,  and  they  must  therefore  be 
taken,  not  as  innovations  but  as  a  reshaping  of  ancient  ritual 
to  fit  the  conditions  of  the  second  Temple.  As  regards  their 
meaning  the  law  is  generally  silent,  and  it  was  left  to  the 
worshipper  to  interpret  the  symbolism  as  he  could.  In  some 
cases  the  meaning  was  transparent  enough,  in  others  the 
original  significance  of  the  acts  prescribed  was  probably 
forgotten  at  the  time  when  the  old  ritual  traditions  were 


LECT.  XII  AFTER   THE    EXILE  381 

codified.^  They  were  conventions  to  wliicli  God  liad  attached 
the  promise  of  forgiveness ;  and  their  real  significance  as  a 
factor  in  the  religious  life  of  Judaism  lay  not  in  the  details 
of  the  ritual  but  in  that  they  constantly  impressed  on  the 
people  the  sense  of  abiding  sin,  the  need  of  forgiveness,  and 
above  all  the  assurance  that  the  religion  of  Israel  was 
grounded  on  a  promise  of  forgiveness  to  those  who  sought 
God  in  the  way  that  He  prescribed.  For  the  promise  of 
forgiveness  is  the  only  foundation  on  which  a  God-fearing 
life  can  be  built.  "With  thee  is  forgiveness  that  thou 
mayest  be  feared  "  (Ps.  cxxx.  4). 

The  Levitical  legislation  in  our  present  Pentateuch  is  the 
practical  adaptation  of  these  principles  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  second  Temple,  when  Jerusalem  was  no  longer  the 
seat  of  a  free  state,  but  only  the  centre  of  a  religious 
community  possessing  certain  municipal  privileges  of  self- 
government.  Its  distinctive  features  are  all  found  in 
Ezekiel's  Torah  —  the  care  with  which  the  Temple  and  its 
vicinity  are  preserved  from  the  approach  of  unclean  things 
and    persons,    the    corresponding   institution   of  a   class   of 

1  I  have  attempted  au  historical  and  comparative  investigation  into  the 
meaning  of  the  atoning  ceremonies  of  the  Hebrews  in  my  Religion  of  the 
Semites,  to  which  the  curious  reader  may  refer.  The  question  as  to  the 
etymological  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  root  "IS3,  from  the  second  stem  of  which 
the  technical  terms  connected  with  atonement  are  derived,  is  obscure.  The 
root  idea  is  commonly  taken  to  be  "to  cover"  (after  the  Arabic)  ;  but  in 
Syriac  the  sense  of  the  simple  stem  is  "to  wijje  off'"  or  "Avipe  clean."  This 
sense  appears  in  Hebrew  (in  the  second  stem)  if  the  text  of  Isa.  xxviii.  18  is 
sound,  which,  however,  is  very  doubtful.  The  sequence  of  the  various  Hebrew 
usages  is  very  ingeniously  worked  out  by  Wellliausen  {Geschichte,  i.  66  sqq. ; 
Composition,  p.  335),  starting  froin  the  sense  "  cover"  ;  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  his  argument  might  be  easily  accommodated  to  the  other  possible 
etymology.  There  are  Semitic  analogies  for  regarding  tlie  forgiveness  of  sin 
either  as  "  covering  "  or  as  "wiping  out,"  and  the  phrase  D"'JD  "IDD  =  D''JD  n^n 
is  not  decisive,  though  on  the  whole  it  seems  easiest  to  take  this  to  mean 
"  to  wipe  clean  the  face  "  blackened  by  displeasure,  as  the  Arabs  say  "  whiten 
the  face. "  The  most  important  point  is  that  except  in  the  Priests'  Code  it  is 
God,  not  the  priest,  who  (on  the  one  etymology)  wipes  out  sin  or  (on  the  other) 
regards  it  as  covered. 


382  THE   LEVITICAL  lect.  xii 

holy  ministers  in  the  person  of  the  Levites,  the  greater 
distance  thus  interposed  between  the  people  and  the  altar, 
the  concentration  of  sacrifice  in  the  two  forms  of  stated 
representative  offerings  (the  tamid)  and  atoning  sacrifices. 
In  all  these  points,  as  Ave  have  seen,  the  usage  of  the 
Law  is  in  distinct  contrast  to  that  of  the  first  Temple, 
where  the  Temple  plateau  was  polluted  by  the  royal 
sepulchres,  where  the  servants  of  the  sanctuary  were  un- 
circumcised  foreigners,  the  stated  service  the  affair  of  the 
king,  regulated  at  will  by  him  (2  Kings  xvi.),  and  the 
atoning  offerings  commonly  took  the  shape  of  fines  paid  to 
the  priests  of  the  sanctuary  (2  Kings  xii.  16).  That 
Ezekiel  in  these  matters  speaks,  not  merely  as  a  priest 
recording  old  usage,  but  as  a  prophet  ordaining  new  Torah 
with  Divine  authority,  is  his  own  express  claim,  and 
therefore  the  Pentateuchal  ordinances  that  go  with  Ezekiel 
against  the  praxis  of  the  first  Temple  must  have  been 
written  after  Ezekiel  and  under  his  influence. 

The  development  of  the  details  of  the  system  falls  there- 
fore between  the  time  of  Ezekiel  and  the  work  of  Ezra, 
or  to  speak  exactly,  between  572  and  444  B.C. ;  and  the 
circumstance  already  referred  to,  that  the  culminating  and 
most  solemn  ceremony  of  the  great  day  of  expiation  was 
not  observed  in  the  year  of  Ezra's  covenant,  shows  that  the 
last  touches  were  not  added  to  the  ritual  until,  through  Ezra's 
agency,  it  was  put  into  practical  operation.^  But,  while  the 
historical  student  is  thus  compelled  to  speak  of  the  ritual 
code  as  the  law  of  the  second  Temple,  it  would  be  a  great 
mistake  to  think  of  it  as  altogether  new.  Ezekiel's  ordin- 
ances are  nothing  else  than  a  reshaping  of  the  old  priestly 
Torah  ;  and  a  close  study  of  the  Levitical  laws,  especially  in 
Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.,  shows  that  many  ancient  Torahs  were  worked 

^  See  additional  Note  F,    The  development  of  the  ritual  system  heticeen 
Ezekiel  and  Ezra. 


LEGISLATION  383 


up,  by  successive  processes,  into  the  complete  system  as  we 
now  possess  it.  In  Lev.  xxiv.  19  sq.,  for  example,  we  tind  the 
old  law  of  retaHation  for  injuries  not  mortal,  which  is  already 
obsolescent  in  the  Deuteronomic  Code.  The  preservation  of 
such  a  Torah  shows  that  the  priests  did  not  give  up  all  their 
old  traditional  law  for  the  written  Code  of  Deuteronomy.  They 
doubtless  continued  till  the  time  of  Ezra  to  give  oral  Torah s, 
as  we  see  from  Haggai  i.  11.  The  analogy  of  all  early  law 
makes  this  procedure  quite  intelligible  to  us.  Nothing  is 
more  common  than  to  find  an  antique  legislation  handed 
down,  in  the  mouth  of  a  priestly  or  legal  guild,  in  certain  set 
forms  of  words. 

To  trace  out  in  detail  how  much  of  the  Levitical  legisla- 
tion consists  of  such  old  Torahs  handed  down  from  time 
immemorial  in  the  priestly  families,  and  how  much  is  new,  is 
a  task  which  we  cannot  now  attempt,  and  which  indeed  lias 
not  yet  been  finally  accomplished  by  scholars.^      The  chief 

1  One  of  the  chief  innovations  of  the  ritual  law  is  the  increased  provision 
for  the  priesthood.  This  occurs  in  two  ways.  In  the  first  place  they  receive 
a  larger  share  in  the  gifts  which  on  the  old  usage  were  the  material  of  feasts 
at  the  sanctuary.  In  Deuteronomy  the  firstlings  are  eaten  by  the  worshipper 
at  the  annual  feasts,  the  priest  of  course  receiving  the  usual  share  of  each 
victim.  But  in  Xum.  xviii.  18  they  belong  entirely  and  absolutely  to  the 
priest.  Tliis  difference  cannot  be  explained  away  ;  for  according  to  Dent.  xiv. 
24  the  firstlings  might  be  turned  into  money,  and  materials  of  a  feast  bought 
with  them,  while  in  Num.  xviii.  17  it  is  forbidden  to  redeem  any  firstling  fit 
for  sacrifice.  Again,  in  Deuteronomy  the  annual  produce  of  the  soil,  but  not 
of  the  herd,  was  tithed  for  the  religious  use  of  the  owner,  who  ate  the  tithes  at 
the  feasts.  But  in  the  Levitical  law  the  tithe  includes  the  herd  and  the  flock 
(Lev.  xxvii.  32),  and  is  a  tribute  paid  to  the  Levites,  who  in  turn  pay  a  tithe 
to  the  priests  (Num.  xviii.).  This  is  quite  another  thing  from  the  Deuteronomic 
annual  tithe,  which  is  not  a  tribute,  but  a  provision  for  the  popular  religious 
festivals  ;  and  the  only  ordinance  of  Deuteronomy  at  all  analogous  to  it  is  the 
charity  tithe  of  the  third  year,  in  Vvdiich  the  Levites  had  a  share  along  with 
the  other  poor  of  the  township.  But  here  also  the  points  of  difference  are 
greater  than  the  points  of  likeness.  The  charity  tithe  was  stored  in  each  town- 
ship and  eaten  by  dependents  where  it  was  stored  (Deut.  xxvi.  12,  13,  where  for 
brought  away  read  consumed  :  the  tithe  was  consumed  where  it  lay  ;  see  verse 
14  Heb.).  The  Levitical  tithe  might  be  eaten  by  the  Levites  where  they  pleased, 
and  in  later  times  was  stored  in  the  Temple.  Once  more,  the  priest's  share  of  a 
sacrifice  in  Deuteronomy  consists  of  inferior  parts,  the  head  and  maw,  which 


384  LEGAL 


interest  of  this  inquiry  lies  in  its  bearing  on  the  early  history 
of  Israel.  It  is  for  the  historian  to  determine  how  far  the 
Priests'  Code  (i.e.  the  Levitical  law  and  the  narrative  sections 
of  the  Pentateuch  that  go  with  it,  and  are  mainly  directed  to 
enforce  law  by  rehearsing  precedents)  is  mere  law,  of  which 
we  can  say  no  more  than  that  it  was  law  for  the  second 
Temple,  and  how  far  it  is  also  history  which  can  be  used  in 
describinsj  the  orioinal  sanctuary  of  the  ark  in  the  davs  of 
Moses.  But  in  following  out  this  inquiry  we  cannot  assume 
that  every  law  which  is  called  a  law  of  Moses  was  meant  to 
be  understood  as  literally  given  in  the  wilderness.  For  it  is 
a  familiar  fact  that  in  the  early  law  of  all  nations  necessary 
modifications  on  old  law  are  habitually  carried  out  by  means 
of  what  lawyers  call  legal  fictions.  This  name  is  somewhat 
misleading  ;  for  a  legal  fiction  is  no  deceit,  but  a  convention 
which  all  parties  understand.  In  short,  it  is  found  more  con- 
venient to  present  the  new  law  in  a  form  which  enables  it  to 
be  treated  as  an  integral  part  of  the  old  legislation.  Thus  in 
Eoman  jurisprudence  all  law  was  supposed  to  be  derived  from 
the  Laws  of  the  Twelve  Tables  (Maine,  Ancient  Law,  p.  33 

in  Arabia  are  still  the  butcher's  fee,  and  the  shoulder,  which  is  not  the 
choicest  joint  (Pseudo-Wakidy,  p.  15,  and  Hamaker's  note),  though  not  the 
worst  (Ezek.  xxiv.  4  ;  Freytag,  Ar.  Prov.  ii.  320).  In  fact  Exod.  xii.  9 
requires  to  make  special  provision  that  the  head  and  inwards  be  not  left 
uneaten  in  the  paschal  lamb,  which  proves  that  they  were  not  esteemed. 
But  in  the  Levitical  law  the  priests'  part  is  the  breast  and  the  leg  (not  as 
E.  V.  the  shoulder),  which  is  the  best  part  (1  Sam.  ix.  24). 

In  the  second  place,  the  Levitical  law,  following  a  hint  of  Ezekiel  (xlv.  4, 
5),  assigns  towns  and  pasture  grounds  to  the  priests  and  Levites.  The  list  of 
such  towns  in  Josh.  xxi.  is  part  of  the  Priests'  Code  and  not  of  the  old  history. 
In  ancient  times  many  of  these  towns  certainly  did  not  belong  either  to 
priests  or  Levites.  Gezer  was  not  conquered  till  the  time  of  Solomon  (1  Kings 
ix.  16).  Shechem,  Gibeon,  and  Hebron  had  quite  a  different  population  in  the 
time  of  the  Judges.  Anathoth  was  a  priestly  city,  but  its  priests  held  the  land 
on  terms  quite  different  from  those  of  the  later  law.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
assignation  of  cities  and  suburbs  to  the  priests  and  Levites  was  never  carried 
out,  as  Jewish  tradition  itself  admits  for  the  period  of  the  second  Tenqde. 

On  the  Levitical  modifications  of  the  festivals,  see  Hupfeld,  Dc  primitiva 
et  vera  festorum  ratione,  Halle,  1852-65 ;  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena,  Kap.  iii. 
On  this  topic  the  last  word  has  not  yet  been  spoken. 


LECT.  XII  FICTIONS  385 

sq.),  just  as  in  Israel  all  law  was  held  to  be  derived  from  the 
teaching  of  Moses.  The  whole  object  of  this  way  of  treating 
the  law  was  to  maintain  the  continuity  of  the  legal  system. 
But  legal  fiction  has  much  more  curious  developments.  In  old 
English  law  many  writs  give  a  quite  imaginary  history  of 
the  case,  alleging,  for  example,  that  the  plaintiff  is  the  king's 
debtor,  and  cannot  pay  his  debts  by  reason  of  the  default  of 
the  defendant.  This  instance  is  not  directly  parallel  to  any- 
thing in  the  Old  Testament ;  but  it  shows  how  impossible 
it  would  be  to  explain  any  system  of  ancient  law  on  the 
assumption  that  every  statement  which  seems  to  be  plain 
narrative  of  fact  is  actually  meant  to  be  so  taken.  It  would 
be  the  highest  presumption  to  affirm  that  what  is  found  in  all 
other  ancient  laws  cannot  occur  in  the  Old  Testament.  The 
very  universality  of  these  conventions  shows  that  in  certain 
stages  of  society  they  form  the  easiest  and  most  intelligible 
way  of  introducing  necessary  modifications  of  law ;  and  the 
Israelites  had  the  same  habits  of  thought  with  other  primitive 
nations,  and  doubtless  required  to  be  taught  and  to  think 
things  out  on  the  same  lines.  In  our  state  of  society  legal 
fictions  are  out  of  date  ;  in  English  law  they  have  long  been 
mere  antiquarian  lumber.  But  Israel's  law  was  given  for  the 
practical  use  of  an  ancient  people,  and  required  to  take  the 
forms  which  we  know,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  to  be  those  which 
primitive  nations  best  understand. 

If  we  find,  then,  by  actual  comparison  of  different  parts 
of  Scripture,  that  some  points  of  law  and  ceremony  are  re- 
lated in  historical  form,  as  if  based  on  Mosaic  precedent,  but 
that  there  is  other  evidence,  as  in  the  case  of  the  march  from 
Sinai  {supra,  p.  321),  that  the  thing  did  not  happen  so  in 
Moses's  own  time,  we  have  to  consider  the  probability  that 
the  form  of  the  narrative  which  aims  at  setting  forth  law  in 
the  shape  of  precedent  is  nothing  more  than  a  case  of  legal 
convention  ;  for  one  well-known  type  of  this  is  to  relate  a 

25 


386  THE    LAW 


new  law  in  the  form  of  an  ancient  precedent.  Let  me  illus- 
trate this  by  an  example  from  Sir  H.  Maine's  Village  Com- 
munities, p.  110.  In  India,  when  the  Government  brings  a 
new  water  supply  into  a  village,  the  village  authorities  make 
rules  for  its  use  and  distribution  ;  but  "  these  rules  do  not 
purport  to  emanate  from  the  personal  authority  of  their 
author  or  authors;  there  is  always  a  sort  of  fiction  under 
which  some  customs  as  to  the  distribution  of  water  are 
supposed  to  have  existed  from  all  antiquity,  although,  in 
fact,  no  artificial  supply  had  been  even  so  much  as  thought 
of."  In  the  same  way  the  new  laws  of  the  Levitical  code 
might  be  presented  as  ordinances  of  Moses,  though,  when 
they  were  first  promulgated,  every  one  knew  that  they  were 
not  so,  and  though  Ezra  himself  speaks  of  some  of  them  as 
ordinances  of  the  prophets. 

A  good  illustration  occurs  in  the  law  of  war.  According 
to  1  Sam.  XXX.  24,  25,  the  standing  law  of  Israel  as  to  the 
distribution  of  booty  was  enacted  by  David,  and  goes  back 
only  to  a  precedent  in  his  war  with  the  Amalekites  ^vho 
burned  Ziklag.  In  the  priestly  legislation  the  same  law  is 
given  as  a  Mosaic  precedent  from  the  war  with  Midian 
(Num.  xxxi.  27).  Here  one  can  hardly  avoid  the  conclusion 
that  the  Pentateuchal  narrator  has  no  other  object  than  to  set 
forth  a  certain  rule  of  war  as  the  ancient  and  sacred  law  of 
Israel.  The  older  historian  is  content  to  refer  this  statute 
and  ordinance  of  Israel  to  David.  But  the  Priestly  Code  had 
to  exhibit  the  whole  system  of  Israel's  law  as  a  unity,  and  if 
the  conventional  methods  of  his  time  led  him  (as  they  did)  to 
cast  his  exposition  into  historical  form,  he  could  only  attain 
the  unity  requisite  in  a  law-book  by  throwing  David's  ordin- 
ance back  into  the  Mosaic  age.  Whether  in  this  or  any 
other  particular  case  he  was  consciously  applying  the  method 
of  legal  fiction,  or  whether  long  before  his  time  younger  laws 
had  been  largely  referred  to  Moses  by  common  consent,  as  the 


LECT.  XII  OF    BOOTY  387 

traditional  way  of  acknowledging  that  they  had  co-ordinate 
authority  with  the  earliest  sacred  legislation,  is  a  matter  of 
detail.  The  important  point  for  us  as  historical  students  is  to 
realise  the  necessity  of  distinguishing  between  quasi-historical 
precedents,  which  are  to  be  taken  only  as  laws,  and  the  actual 
history,  which  is  to  be  taken  literally.  To  indolent  theologians 
this  necessity  is  naturally  unwelcome ;  but  to  the  diligent  and 
reverent  student  it  affords  the  key  for  the  solution  of  many 
difficulties,  and  enables  us  to  gain  a  much  more  consistent  and 
instructive  view  of  the  early  history  of  Israel  than  is  possible 
on  the  traditional  assumption  that  the  whole  law  which  regu- 
lated the  life  of  the  Jews  in  the  age  of  Pericles  was  already 
extant  and  in  force  long  before  tlie  Trojan  war,  in  a  nation 
that  was  only  just  emerging  from  the  primitive  conditions  of 
pastoral  life  in  the  desert.  The  conclusion  to  which  modern 
critics  have  been  led  is  that  the  whole  Priests'  Code,  alike  in 
those  parts  which  are  formally  legislative  and  in  those  which 
a  superficial  reading  might  regard  as  purely  historical,  is  to  be 
taken  as  essentially  a  law-book,  and  must  not  be  used  as  an 
independent  source  for  the  actual  history  of  the  Mosaic  time. 
For  history,  as  distinct  from  law,  the  priestly  author  appears 
to  have  had  no  other  authorities  than  those  older  books  of 
which  the  greater  part  is  still  preserved  to  us  in  the  non- 
priestly  sections  of  the  Pentateuch.  Some  account  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  Priests'  Code  deals  with  these  older 
sources,  of  the  way  in  which  it  strings  its  legal  precepts  on 
an  historical  thread,  and  of  the  way  in  which  it  allows  itself 
to  reshape  the  narrative  in  order  to  set  forth  later  laws  under 
the  conventional  form  of  Mosaic  precedent,  is  necessary  to 
complete  the  most  summary  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. The  first  edition  of  this  book  stopped  at  the  point 
which  we  liave  now  reached ;  I  shall  now  attempt  to  supply 
the  defect  by  a  supplementary  Lecture. 


LECTUEE    XIII 

THE  NARRATIVE  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH 

In  the  last  Lecture  the  critical  argument  about  the  dates  of 
the  three  Pentateuchal  Codes  was  carried  to  its  conclusion. 
The  proof  that  the  three  great  strata  of  laws  embodied  in  the 
so-called  books  of  Moses  are  not  all  of  one  age  but  correspond 
to  three  stages  in  the  development  of  Israel's  institutions, 
which  can  still  be  clearly  recognised  in  the  narrative  of  the 
historical  books,  is  the  most  important  achievement  of  Old 
Testament  criticism.  When  the  codes  are  set  in  their  ricrht 
places  the  main  source  of  confusion  in  the  study  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  removed,  the  central  problem  of  criticism  is 
solved,  and  the  controversy  between  modern  criticism  and 
conservative  tradition  is  really  decided. 

Behind  this  central  problem  there  lie  of  course  a  multi- 
tude of  other  questions  that  must  be  answered  before  the  task 
of  the  critic  is  completed.  The  Pentateuch  is  a  composite 
book,  in  which  several  bodies  of  law  belonging  to  different 
periods  occur  embedded  in  a  narrative.  The  narrative  in  its 
present  form  cannot  be  older  than  the  youngest  body  of  laws,^ 
and  therefore  must  have  been  completed  some  time  between 
the  age  of  Ezekiel  and  that  of  Ezra.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
final  narrator  certainly  used  older  written  documents,  from 
which  he  made  copious  extracts  verhatim.     It  is  manifestly 

^  It  is  of  course  quite  possible  that  single  laws,  sucli  as  that  about  the 
poll-tax  {supra,  p.  51),  may  have  been  added  later. 


LECT.  XIII  NARRATIVE    OF    THE    HEXATEUCH  389 

of  great  importance  to  determine  all  that  can  be  determined 
as  to  the  nature  and  age  of  these  documents,  and  the  process 
by  which  they  and  the  several  bodies  of  laws  were  ultimately 
fused  together  in  a  single  volume. 

In  the  course  of  twelve  Lectures,  whicli  made  up  the  first 
edition  of  this  book,  I  had  no  room  to  give  more  than  a  few 
general  hints  on  this  branch  of  the  critical  problem.  Nor 
can  I  now  attempt  a  complete  exposition  of  all  that  critics 
have  made  out  as  to  the  structure  of  the  Pentateuchal  nar- 
rative, and  of  the  arguments  by  which  their  results  have  been 
attained.  For  such  an  exposition  it  would  be  necessary  to  go 
through  the  whole  Hebrew  text,  book  by  book,  and  chapter 
by  chapter — a  task  unsuitable  to  the  plan  of  the  present 
volume.  Those  who  wish  to  follow  out  the  critical  analysis 
in  detail  will  find  the  necessary  help  in  the  first  volume  of 
Kuenen's  Ondcrzoelc,  which  is  the  standard  work  on  the 
subject,  and  accessible  in  an  English  translation,  or,  in  a 
more  compendious  and  easier  form,  in  Prof.  Driver's  Intro- 
duction. I  have  no  desire  to  say  again  what  is  so  well  said 
in  these  books ;  but  those  who  have  followed  my  argument 
thus  far  may  naturally  desire  to  have,  in  conclusion,  at  least 
a  general  sketch  of  the  whole  results  of  Pentateuch  criticism. 
I  have  met  with  many  persons  who  admit  that  they  can 
detect  no  flaw  in  the  critical  arguments  by  which  the  dates  of 
the  codes  are  established,  but  who  yet  suspend  their  judg- 
ment, and  are  tempted  to  regard  the  whole  Pentateuch 
question  as  a  hopeless  puzzle,  because  they  cannot  under- 
stand how  the  Mosaic  history  is  to  be  read  in  the  light  of 
the  new  critical  discoveries ;  and  it  is  certainly  true  that  if 
the  dates  assigned  to  the  codes  are  correct  they  ought  to  find 
their  most  important  verification  in  the  analysis  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal narrative.     And  so  in  point  of  fact  they  do. 

The  method  by  which  the  codes  are  assigned  to  their 
proper  place  in  Hebrew  history,  and  the  method  by  which 


390  THE    TWO    LINES    OF  lect.  xiii 

the  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch  can  be  analysed  into  their 
component  parts,  and  shown  to  be  made  up  of  extracts  from 
several  documents,  are  to  a  great  extent  independent ;  and,  in 
point  of  fact,  very  considerable  progress  had  been  made  in  the 
second  branch  of  analysis  before  anything  important  was 
settled  on  the  question  of  the  laws.  The  strength  of  the 
present  position  of  Pentateuch  criticism  is  in  good  measure 
due  to  the  fact  that  two  lines  of  inquiry  have  converged  to  a 
common  result. 

These  two  lines  of  inquiry  may  be  called  respectively  the 
historical  and  the  literary.  The  historical  method  compares 
the  institutions  set  forth  in  the  several  codes  with  the  actual 
working  institutions  of  Israel,  as  we  see  them  in  the  historical 
books  ;  the  literary  method  compares  the  several  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch  with  one  another,  taking  note  of  diversities  of 
style  and  manner,  of  internal  contradictions  or  incongruities, 
and  of  all  other  points  that  forbid  us  to  regard  the  whole 
Torah  as  the  homogeneous  composition  of  a  single  WTiter. 
In  the  first  period  of  Pentateuch  criticism,  of  which  Noldeke's 
Untersuchungen  (Kiel,  1869)  may  be  taken  as  the  last  im- 
portant utterance,  most  scholars  threw  their  whole  strength 
into  the  literary  line  of  inquiry.  It  was  already  settled  that 
the  Code  of  Deuteronomy  was  Josiah's  Law-book,  and  that 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant  must  be  older,  but  there  was  no 
agreement  about  the  Priestly  Code.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
had  been  clearly  seen  that  the  priestly  laws  form  an  integral 
part  of  a  great  document,  running  through  the  whole  Penta- 
teuch from  Genesis  onwards  and  extending  into  Joshua. 
And  it  had  also  been  shown  that  this  document  displays  so 
many  marked  peculiarities  of  language,  mannerisms  of  style, 
and  characteristic  ways  of  looking  at  things,  that  it  is  possible 
to  separate  it  out  with  much  precision  from  the  other  sources 
with  which  it  is  now  interwoven. 

Thus  when  the  new  school  of  criticism  came  forward  with 


LECT.  XIII  CRITICAL    INQUIRY  391 

its  historical  argument  to  prove  that  the  priestly  laws,  as  a 
whole,  are  later  than  Ezekiel,  the  means  were  at  hand  for 
subjecting  this  conclusion  to  a  severe  test  of  an  independent 
kind.  If  the  new  criticism  was  right,  the  document  embody- 
ing the  priestly  laws  was  the  latest  element  in  the  Pentateuch 
and  Joshua,  and  when  it  was  separated  out  the  parts  of  the 
Hexateuch  that  remained  could  not  contain  any  reference, 
direct  or  indirect,  to  the  priestly  document.  It  was  found 
on  careful  examination  that  this  was  actually  the  case. 
Some  apparent  instances  to  the  contrary  were  indeed  brought 
forward  ;  but  the  list  of  places  where  the  non-priestly  sources 
seemed  to  be  dependent  on  the  priestly  document  was  from 
the  first  extraordinarily  meagre  and  little  fitted  to  produce 
conviction ;  and  on  closer  examination  it  shrank  to  nothing. 
For  example,  the  introductory  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Deuter- 
onomy contain  a  summary  of  the  story  of  the  forty  years' 
wandering.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  history  of  this 
period,  as  it  stands  in  our  present  Pentateuch,  belongs  to  the 
priestly  document ;  but  everything  peculiar  to  that  document 
is  remarkable  by  its  absence  from  the  historical  retrospect  in 
Deuteronomy.  At  first  the  opponents  of  the  new  views  w^ere 
not  prepared  to  concede  this ;  they  could  not  deny  that  the 
retrospect  was  silent  about  the  priestly  tabernacle  and  its 
ordinances,  that  it  ignored  the  whole  series  of  revelations  to 
]\Ioses  and  Aaron  on  which  the  priestly  system  of  Israel's 
sanctity  rests;  but  they  thought  that  they  could  point  out 
some  few  minor  details  in  which  the  Deuteronomic  writer 
betrayed  acquaintance  with  the  priestly  document.  If  this 
had  been  correct  it  could  only  have  led  to  the  startling  result 
that  the  Deuteronomist  deliberately  ignored  the  main  teach- 
ing of  the  priestly  document,  and  aimed  at  suppressing  an 
essential  part  of  the  sacred  law.  But  it  was  soon  shown  that 
there  was  no  occasion  to  adopt  any  such  sensational  theory  ; 
the  supposed  points  of  contact  between  Deuteronomy  and  the 


392  RESULTS    OF 


LECT.  XIII 


priestly  document  were  found  either  to  be  illusory  or  to 
admit  of  an  explanation  consistent  with  the  priority  of  the 
former  work.^ 

This  coincidence  between  the  results  of  historical  and 
literary  criticism  is  the  more  striking  because  the  literary 
determination  of  the  limits  of  the  priestly  document  or  group 
was  carried  out  almost  entirely  by  scholars  who  took  it  for 
granted  that  this  document  was  certainly  older  than  Deuter- 
onomy, and  probably  the  oldest  thing  in  the  Hexateuch. 
There  can  therefore  be  no  suspicion  that  their  analysis  was 
influenced  by  arguments  drawn  from  the  historico-legal  line 
of  inquiry. 

^  In  justification  of  these  statements  it  may  suffice  to  refer  to  the  latest 
important  publication  on  the  other  side.  Prof.  Dillmann,  of  Berlin,  is  now 
the  only  scholarof  eminence  who  dissents  from  the  new  critical  construction  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  has  given  his  reasons  for  doing  so  after  a  full  considera- 
tion of  the  researches  of  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen.  One  is  not  bound  to  take 
note  in  this  connection  of  views  set  forth  before  the  two  scholars  last  named 
had  put  the  whole  matter  in  a  fresh  light,  or  of  newer  utterances,  like  those 
of  Renan,  which  simply  ignore  the  more  modern  criticism.  Between  Dillmann 
and  the  school  of  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen  there  is  no  controversy  as  to  the 
broad  lines  of  division  that  mark  out  the  Hexateuch  as  consisting  of  four 
essential  parts,  viz.  the  priestly  document,  or  group  of  documents  (for  it  is 
not  affirmed  and  not  essential  to  the  argument  that  all  the  priestly  pieces  are 
by  one  hand  :  it  is  enough  that  they  belong  to  one  school) ;  the  Deuteronomic 
document  (or  group)  ;  and  two  earlier  documents  commonly  known  as  the 
Jahvistic  and  the  Elohistic.  Dillmann  admits  that  the  two  documents  last 
named  are  older  than  Deuteronomy  and  the  priestly  document  or  group,  but 
he  does  not  admit  that  the  last  is  younger  than  Deuteronomy.  And  he 
thinks  that  the  Jahvistic,  Elohistic,  and  priestly  parts  of  the  Hexateuch  were 
united  into  a  single  book  before  Deuteronomy  was  added.  But  when  it  comes 
to  the  question  whether  the  Deuteronomic  writings  presuppose  the  existence 
of  the  priestly  group,  he  admits  that  this  cannot  be  proved  with  absolute 
certainty.  On  the  other  hand,  he  feels  sure  that  R^  (i.e.  the  writer  who  in- 
corporated Deuteronomy  for  the  first  time  with  the  other  parts  of  the  Penta- 
teuch) knew  the  priestly  writings.  In  other  words,  the  proof  that  the  priestly 
group  is  not  the  youngest  part  of  the  Pentateuch  cannot  be  effected  by  com- 
parison with  the  other  great  masses  of  Pentateuchal  writing,  but  turns  on  a 
particular  theory  of  the  steps  by  which  the  original  documents  were  fused 
together.  I  venture  to  say  that  this  argument  proves  nothing.  Suppose  it 
true  that  Deuteronomy  was  still  a  separate  book  after  the  other  three  docu- 
ments or  groups  were  fused  together,  this  does  not  in  the  slightest  degree 
affect  the  force  of  the  historical  argument  for  putting  the  Deuteronomic  Code 


LECT.  xiTT  LITERARY   ANALYSIS  393 

I  have  already  explained  that  I  cannot  undertake  to 
carry  you  through  the  details  of  the  analysis  on  which  the 
delimitation  of  the  priestly  group  of  writings  rests.  But  I 
think  I  can  give  such  a  sketch  of  the  metliods  of  analysis, 
with  illustrations  from  particular  cases,  as  will  satisfy 
reasonable  persons  that  the  critics  have  been  working  on 
sound  lines.  And  when  this  is  taken  along  with  the  fact  that 
the  results  of  the  literary  analysis  agree  with  what  can  be 
proved  from  history  as  to  the  date  of  the  codes,  you  will,  I 
think,  have  as  much  evidence  before  you  as  persons  who  are 
not  specialists  can  ever  expect  to  have  in  a  complicated 
problem  of  ancient  history.  Speaking  broadly,  the  critics 
divide  the  Hexateuch  into  three  groups  of  literature ;  the 
oldest  history,  represented  by  two  documents  that  are  cited  as 
the  Jahvistic  and  Elohistic  stories,  or  more  briefly  as  J  and  E  ; 
the  Deuteronomic  Code  with  its  appendages  (cited  as  D) ;  and 
the  group  of  priestly  writings  (cited  as  P).  For  our  purposes 
it  will  be  most  convenient  to  begin  with  the  Deuteronomic 
group.  We  start  with  the  facts  already  established,  that  the 
code  of  Deut.  xii.-xxvi.  is  a  reshaping  of  the  old  law  under 
the  influence  of  the  teaching  of  the  prophets  of  the  eighth 
century,  and  that  it  is  the  law  on  which  Josiah's  Eeformation 
proceeded  (621  B.C.).  In  our  present  Book  of  Deuteronomy 
the  code  is  preceded  and  followed  by  a  series  of  discourses, 
Deut.  i.-xi.   on  the  one  side  and  Deut.  xxvii.-xxx.  on  the 


and  its  appendages  before  the  Priests'  Code  and  the  rest  of  the  priestly 
writings.  And  the  very  significant  fact  that  the  Deuteronomic  sketch  of  the 
history  ignores  all  that  is  characteristic  in  the  priestly  history  also  remains 
untouched.  On  this  point,  indeed,  Dillmann  replies  with  a  tu  quoque.  If 
Deuteronomy  ignores  the  Priests'  Code  and  history,  he  says,  it  must  equally 
be  admitted  on  the  other  side  that  the  latter  ignores  Deuteronomy.  Peally  ? 
Is  it  not  plain  that  the  whole  system  of  the  Priests'  Code  rests  on  the  cardinal 
Deuteronomic  doctrine  of  the  one  sanctuary,  which  is  so  completely  taken  for 
granted  by  the  later  writer  that  it  does  not  even  receive  formal  expression  and 
justification  ?  See  Dillmann,  Die  Biicher  Num.,  Deut.,  and  Jos.  (Leipzig,  1886), 
p.  668,  and  comp.  on  the  whole  matter  Driver,  Introduction,  p.  77  sq.,  p.  130, 
p.  137  s^. 


394  THE    SPEECHES    IN 


LECT.  XIII 


other.^  That  in  substance  and  style  these  chapters  are 
closely  akin  to  the  code  of  Deut.  xii.-xxvi.,  and  stand  apart 
from  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  must  be  plain  to  every 
attentive  reader,  but  we  shall  hardly  be  justified  in  conclud- 
ing that  Deut.  i.-xxx.  is  all  by  one  hand,  and  that  all  these 
chapters  were  contained  in  the  book  laid  before  King  Josiah. 
Note  in  particular  that  chap,  xxvii.  breaks  the  connection 
between  xxvi.  and  xxviii.,  and  further  that  the  occurrence  of  a 
series  of  titles  and  subscriptions  at  difterent  points  (chap.  i.  1, 
V.  1,  xii.  1,  xxix.  1  [Heb.  xxviii.  69])  suggests  rather  that  the 
code  may  have  appeared  in  successive  editions  with  fresh 
exhortations  added  by  way  of  preface  and  conclusion.  This, 
however,  is  a  matter  of  detail  that  need  not  concern  us  at 
present. 

The  date  of  the  whole  Deuteronomic  group  is  of  course 
dependent  on  the  date  of  the  code,  i.e.  no  part  of  Deut. 
i.-xxx.  can  be  older  than  the  seventh  century  B.C. ;  while  if 
the  theory  of  successive  editions  is  correct,  some  parts  may  be 
a  good  deal  later  than  Josiah's  Eeformation  in  621  B.C.  But 
the  whole  group  is  manifestly  older  than  the  Priestly  Code  ; 
for  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  the  distinction  between 
Priests  and  Levites  (see  Deut.  x.  8),  and  the  sketch  of  the 
events  of  the  wilderness  journey  contained  in  the  opening 
chapters  of  Deuteronomy  passes  in  silence  over  all  those 
histories  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  which  imply 
that  the  Priestly  Code  was  already  in  force  in  the  days  of 
Moses.^ 

If  the  Deuteronomic  Code  was  not  in  existence  before  the 
seventh  century  B.C.,  we  cannot  regard  the  speeches  and 
exhortations  of  Moses  contained  in  the  Deuteronomic  group 
as  anything  else  than  free  compositions.  We  have  in  them 
not  what  Moses  actually  said  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  but 

^  Deut.  xxxi.  belongs  only  in  part  to  this  group,  and  in  its  present  form 
must  be  regarded  as  the  link  uniting  D  to  the  I'est  of  the  Pentateuch. 
-  Some  apparent  exceptions  will  come  up  for  consideration  later. 


LECT.  XIII  DEUTERONOMY  395 

admonitions  conceived  in  the  spirit  of  Moses  and  first 
addressed  to  the  men  of  Josiah's  time,  or  in  part,  perhaps,  to 
the  next  generation.  As  a  matter  of  literary  form  tliis  way 
of  enforcing  the  lessons  of  past  history  has  evidently  much  to 
recommend  it,  and  it  was  not  introduced  for  the  first  time  in 
the  aGfe  of  Josiah.  In  Joshua  xxiv.,  which  all  critics  assign 
to  one  of  the  pre-Deuteronomic  sources  of  the  Pentateuch  (E), 
Joshua  is  introduced  in  the  same  way,  recapitulating  how 
God  had  led  Israel  in  the  past,  and  drawing  a  practical 
conclusion.  The  Deuteronomic  writers,  therefore,  were 
employing  a  recognised  literary  form  which  was  not  likely  to 
be  misunderstood  in  a  society  that  had  reached  so  high  a 
pitch  of  literary  culture  as  Judah  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  To 
suppose  that  the  speeches  were  forged  in  Moses's  name  to 
support  the  halting  authority  of  the  code  is  simply  absurd. 
In  all  probability  the  code  had  already  been  accepted  as  the 
law  of  the  land  before  the  speeches  w^ere  added ;  or,  if  some 
of  the  speeches  were  already  included  in  the  book  that  was 
brought  to  Josiah,  it  is  puerile  to  think  that  the  heads  of  a 
nation  in  which  letters  had  flourished  for  centuries,  and  which 
possessed  such  masterpieces  of  literary  workmanship  as  the 
older  histories  and  the  prophetical  books  of  the  eighth  century, 
could  have  failed  to  observe  that  a  speech  written  in  the  name 
of  Moses  was  not  necessarily  genuine.  It  was  the  intrinsic 
merits  of  Deuteronomy  that  gained  it  acceptance ;  and  if  the 
book  had  not  set  forth  such  a  combination  of  the  old  law  of 
the  realm  with  the  principles  of  the  prophets  as  commended 
itself  to  the  national  conscience  and  indicated  a  practical 
course  of  Reformation,  the  mere  name  of  Moses  would  not 
have  prevented  it  from  being  tossed  aside. 

While  the  speeches  of  Deuteronomy  were  not  absolutely  a 
new  departure  in  literary  art,  we  can  see  that  they  made  a 
profound  impression  on  the  literary  aims  and  methods  of  the 
period    immediately   subsequent   to    Josiah's    Reformation. 


396  ISRAEL    IX    THE  lect.  xiii 

Thus  the  Book  of  Joshua  contains  considerable  passages,  e.g. 
the  greater  part  of  chap.  i.  and  the  whole  of  chap,  xxiii., 
which  are  obviously  imitations  of  the  parenetic  manner  of 
Deuteronomy ;  and  additions  of  the  same  kind  can  be 
detected  in  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings.  These  insertions 
hardly  touch  the  substance  of  the  history,  which,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  makes  it  quite  plain  that  the  law  of  Deuteronomy 
was  not  known  before  the  time  of  Josiah  ;  they  consist  mainly 
of  a  series  of  reflections  on  the  meaning  and  lessons  of  the 
story,  sometimes  in  the  shape  of  speeches,  and  sometimes  in 
the  writer's  own  name,  but  all  framed  in  the  Deuteronomic 
manner  and  on  the  assumption  that  the  law  of  Deuteronomy 
is  the  standard  by  which  national  conduct  must  be  judged. 
In  the  language  of  critics,  it  appears  that  the  historical  books 
from  Judges  to  Kings  have  passed  through  the  hands  of  at 
least  one  Deuteronomic  redactor. 

The  group  Deut.  i.-xxx.  offers  little  difficulty  to  the  criti- 
cal analyst,  because  it  has  been  transferred  to  the  present 
Hexateuch  entire,  and  in  continuous  form.  In  like  manner 
it  is  probable  that  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.  once  existed  as  a  separate 
book,  very  nearly  in  the  shape  in  which  we  now  read  it. 
This  section  belongs  in  general  character  to  the  priestly 
group,  and  probably  represents  the  earliest  attempt  to  codify 
the  priestly  ordinances.  But  the  mass  of  the  Hexateuch, 
after  Deut.  i.-xxx.  has  been  set  on  one  side,  is  made  up  of 
extracts  from  several  sources  pieced  together  in  a  com- 
plicated way.  And  here  the  difficulties  of  critical  analysis 
begin. 

How  complex  the  structure  of  the  narrative  sometimes  is 
has  already  been  shown  in  Lecture  XL  by  the  example  of  the 
story  of  the  Deluge.  But  fortunately  for  the  critics  this  close 
interweaving  of  single  sentences  from  two  sources  is  not  the 
general  rule ;  there  are  long  continuous  tracts  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch where  a  single  source  is  followed  and  nothing  more 


LECT.  XIII  WILDERNESS  397 

serious  than  an  occasional  editorial  touch  comes  in  to  break 
the  unity  of  the  exposition.  Thus  in  the  middle  books  of  the 
Pentateuch  we  can  at  once  mark  off  a  series  of  sections,  com- 
prising the  mass  of  the  priestly  laws  and  a  certain  amount  of 
narrative  intimately  connected  with  these  laws.  Such  are 
Exod.  xxv.-xxxi.,  and  then  again,  after  a  break  of  three 
chapters,  Exod.  xxxv.-xl.;  further  the  whole  Book  of  Levi- 
ticus (save  that  xvii.-xxvi.  were  mainly  taken  over  into 
the  priestly  document  from  an  older  book) ;  Num.  i.  1-x.  28. 
In  the  last  verses  of  Num.  x.  we  pass  to  another  and  dis- 
crepant source,  as  was  shown  in  Lecture  XL  (supra,  p.  321), 
and  from  this  point  the  phenomena  become  more  complex. 
But  the  priestly  source  reappears  without  anything  suggestive 
of  admixture  in  Num.  xv.  xvii.-xix.  xxvi.-xxxi.,  and  finally  in 
Num.  xxxiii.-xxxvi. 

I  do  not  think  it  is  necessary  to  argue  in  detail  that  all 
these  passages  are  closely  connected  and  must  be  drawn  from 
a  single  source  ;  it  will  be  more  instructive  to  look  at  some  of 
the  reasons  why  I  have  passed  over  certain  chapters  as  being 
either  of  mixed  origin  or  wholly  derived  from  a  different 
source.  And  first  then,  as  regards  Exodus  xxxii.-xxxiv.,  or 
more  exactly  xxxii.  xxxiii.  xxxiv.  1-28.^ 

The  analysis  of  these  chapters  presents  several  points  of 
difficulty  on  which  critics  are  not  yet  fully  agreed.  That 
the  whole  is  not  derived  from  a  single  source  is  pretty  clear ; 
thus  xxxii.  7-14,  where  Moses  is  informed  about  the  sin  of  the 
golden  calf,  and  obtains  God's  forgiveness  for  the  people  before 
leaving  the  mount  for  the  first  time,  is  hardly  of  one  piece 
with  xxxii.  30-34,  where  the  same  forgiveness  is  obtained  at 
a  second  visit  to  Sinai,  nor  indeed  with  the  angry  surprise  of 

1  Exod.  xxxiv.  29-35  is  really  the  close  of  chap,  xxxi.,  containing  several 
expressions  highly  characteristic  of  P.  It  does  not  run  quite  smoothly  with 
what  follows  (comp.  xxxiv.  32  with  xxxv.  1)  ;  but  there  are  reasons  for 
thinking  that  chaps,  xxxv.  sqq.  have  at  any  rate  been  largely  retouched  by  a 
late  hand. 


398  THE    GOLDEN   CALF  lect.  xiii 

Moses  as  he  approaches  the  camp,  xxxii.  17-19.  There  are 
other  signs  that  the  narrative  is  not  homogeneous  throughout, 
but  on  these  and  the  various  analyses  to  which  they  have 
given  rise  I  need  not  dwell.  The  point  to  be  noticed  is 
that  these  chapters  as  a  whole  interrupt  the  sequence  of  the 
priestly  narrative,  and  present  a  different  view  of  the  course 
of  events.  In  Exod.  xxv.-xxxi.  Moses  is  on  the  mount  re- 
ceiving instructions  for  the  construction  of  the  ark  and 
tabernacle,  and  for  the  institution  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood, 
that  Jehovah  may  take  up  his  dwelling  in  the  midst  of  Israel. 
In  chapters  xxxv.  sqq^.  Moses  communicates  his  instructions 
to  the  people,  and  the  tabernacle  is  made  and  set  up.  Further 
ordinances  follow  in  the  Book  of  Leviticus  and  the  early 
chapters  of  Numbers.  These  things  take  up  much  time,  and 
it  is  almost  a  year  after  the  first  arrival  at  Sinai  before  the 
people  break  up  to  pursue  their  journey  towards  Canaan 
(Num.  X.  11,  compared  with  Exod.  xix.  1).  AU  this  is 
simple  and  self-consistent,  and  leaves  us  with  a  clear  con- 
ception that  the  main  purpose  of  the  visit  to  Sinai  was  to 
furnish  the  people  with  the  pattern  of  ritual  and  priesthood 
necessary  to  a  holy  nation,  in  whose  midst  Jehovah  dwells. 
But  now  observe  how  chaps,  xxxii.-xxxiv.  break  the  tenor 
of  the  narrative.  While  Moses  is  on  the  mount  the  people 
fall  to  worship  the  golden  calf,  and  for  this  sin  they  are 
chastised.  There  would  be  no  difficulty  in  this  if  we  could 
treat  the  affair  of  the  calf  as  a  mere  episode  which  produced 
no  permanent  effect  on  Israel's  relations  to  Jehovah.  And 
we  must  treat  it  so  if  we  take  chap.  xxxv.  as  the  natural 
sequel  to  chap,  xxxiv.  ;  for  in  it  Moses,  after  revisiting  Sinai 
to  replace  the  broken  tables,  quietly  passes  over  all  the  recent 
events  and  begins  to  rehearse  the  ordinances  about  the  taber- 
nacle, exactly  as  if  the  calf  had  never  been  made  and  the 
vocation  of  the  holy  nation  had  never  been  in  jeopardy.  But 
this  is  not  the  view  of  chaps,  xxxii.-xxxiv.     There  the  people's 


LECT.  XIII  AND   THE   TABERNACLE  399 

siu  is  indeed  pardoned,  but  the  pardon  is  accompanied  by  a 
sentence  of  banishment  from  the  Mount  of  God  (xxxiii.  1). 
Moreover,  though  Jehovah  promises  to  guide  the  people, 
sending  His  angel  before  them  (xxxii.  34,  xxxiii.  2),  He 
warns  them  that  He  cannot  go  in  the  midst  of  them  (xxxiii. 
3) ;  and  the  practical  application  of  this  is  seen  in  xxxiii.  7 
sq^.,  where  the  tabernacle,  the  seat  of  revelation,  is  pitched 
outside  the  camp  and  remote  from  it.  Both  these  points  are 
entirely  ignored  in  the  priestly  narrative.  The  order  to  de- 
part is  never  withdrawn,  yet  the  people  remain  at  Sinai  as  if 
nothing  had  happened.  And  in  xxxv.  sqq.  the  construction 
of  the  priestly  tabernacle,  within  which  God  is  to  dwell  in 
the  centre  of  the  camp,  proceeds  without  any  reference  to 
the  existence  of  the  tabernacle  of  chap,  xxxiii.,  standing  out- 
side the  camp.  But  can  we  suppose  at  least  that  Jehovah's 
refusal  to  go  in  the  midst  of  the  people  was  tacitly  withdrawn, 
and  the  first  tabernacle  replaced  by  the  priestly  tent  ?  ISTo  ; 
for  the  sanctuary  outside  the  camp  reappears  long  after,  in 
Num.  xi.  24,  26,  in  Num.  xii.  4,  and  by  implication  also  in 
Num.  X.  33,  where  the  ark  goes  before  the  host,  not  in  the 
midst  of  it."^ 

Still  more  inexplicable  is  the  relation  of  the  priestly  ordin- 
ances to  the  covenant  between  Jehovah  and  Israel,  of  which 
the  terms  are  set  forth  in  Exod.  xxxiv.  10-27.  This  covenant 
is  announced  in  express  terms  as  the  foundation  of  Israel's 
relations  to  Jehovah.  But  it  has  nothing  in  common  with 
the  elaborate  priestly  ordinances  already  revealed  in  chaps, 
xxv.-xxxi.  Did  Jehovah  give  all  the  details  of  priesthood 
and  tabernacle  before  he  fixed  the  fundamental  lines  of 
Israel's  religion  ?  Or  are  we  rather  to  assume  that  the 
rebellion  and  the  breaking  of  the  first  tables  rendered  it 
necessary  to   make    an   entirely  new  beginning  and  a  new 

1  Note  also  that  in  Deut.  x.  1  sqq.  the  ark  is  made  at  tlie  same  time  as  the 
renewed  tables  of  stone. 


400  THE    NARRATIVE  lect.  xiii 

fundamental  covenant?  And  if  so  how  comes  it  that,  ac- 
cording to  chap.  XXXV.,  Moses,  when  he  descends  from  the 
mount,  is  silent  as  to  the  covenant  of  chap,  xxxiv.,  and  goes 
back  to  take  up  the  thread  of  chap.  xxxi.  ?  From  all  this 
the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  chap.  xxxv.  attaches  itself 
directly  to  chap,  xxxi.,  and  has  nothing  in  common  with 
Exod.  xxxii.-xxxiv.^ 

We  may  now  pass  on  to  the  break  in  the  priestly  nar- 
rative at  Num.  X.  28.  Upon  x.  29  sq^c[.  enough  has  been  said 
at  p.  321.  In  chaps,  xi.  xii.  the  position  of  the  tabernacle 
outside  the  camp  is  sufficient  proof  that  the  narrative  is  not 
priestly  ;  and  we  also  observe  that  in  chap.  xii.  Aaron  is  not 
priest  but  prophet.  In  chaps,  xiii.  xiv.  again,  which  contain 
the  history  of  the  spies  that  were  sent  to  search  the  land  of 
Canaan,  and  of  the  rebellion  that  followed  on  their  report,  we 
have  plainly  to  deal  with  a  compound  narrative,  the  elements 
of  which  may  be  exhibited  as  follows  in  parallel  columns  : — 

Num.  xiii.  1-17  a. — Moses,  by  17  6-20.  .  .  .  and  said  to 
the  commandment  of  the  Lord,  them.  Go  up  through  the  Negeb, 
sends  forth  twelve  men  from  the  and  go  up  into  the  mountain-land, 
wilderness  of  Paran  to  spy  out  the  and  see  the  land  what  it  is,  and  the 
land  of  Canaan.  .  .  .  (21.)  So  people  that  dwell  in  it,  whether 
they  went  up  and  spied  out  the  they  be  strong  or  weak,  few  or 
land  from  the  wilderness  of  Zin  as  many,  etc.  And  take  ye  of  the 
far  as  Rehob  and  the  frontier  of  fruit  of  the  land.  Now  the  time 
Hamath.  .  .  .  (25.)  And  they  re-  was  the  time  of  the  first  ripe  grapes, 
turned  from  spying  out  the  land  .  .  .  (22.)  So  they  went  up  through 
after  forty  days,  (26)  and  went  and  the  Negeb,  and  came  as  far  as  He- 
came  to  Moses  and  Aaron  and  to  bron,  etc.  .  .  .  (23,  24.)  From 
all  the  congregation  of  the  children  Eshcol  [near  Hebron]  they  took 
of  Israel  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran,  a  huge  bunch  of  grapes  with  pome- 
.  .  .  and  made  their  report  to  grunates  and  figs.  .  .  .  (26.)  [Then 
them  and  to  the  whole  congre-  they  returned]  to  Kadesh  .  .  .  and 
gation.  .  .  .  (32.)  And  they  showed  them  the  fruit  of  the  land, 
brought  up  an  evil  report  of  the  (27-29.)  And  they  told  him 
land    which    they    had  spied  out  [Moses]  that  the  land  flowed  with 

1  It  is  probable  that  Exod.  xxxv.-xl.  have  been  expanded  by  later  hands 
from  a  much  shorter  account  of  the  carrying  out  of  the  directions  in  chaps. 
XXV. -xxxi.  ;  see  supra,  p.  125.  But  this  does  not  affect  the  argument,  since 
chaps,  xxxii.  -xxxiv.  are  ignored  by  the  whole  priestly  legislation. 


LECT.  XIII 


OF    THE    SPIES 


401 


unto  the  children  of  Israel,  saying, 
The  land,  through  which  we  have 
gone  to  S23y  it  out,  is  a  land  that 
eateth  up  the  inhabitants  thereof. 
.  .  .  (xiv.  1.)  And  all  the  congrega- 
tion lifted  up  their  voice,  and  cried. 
.  .  .  (2,  3.)  And  all  the  children  of 
Israel  raurnuned  against  Moses  and 
Aaron  :  and  the  whole  congregation 
said  unto  them.  Would  that  we  had 
died  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  etc.  .  .  . 
(5.)  And  Moses  and  Aaron  fell  on 
their  faces  before  all  the  congrega- 
tion of  the  children  of  Israel.  (6.) 
And  Joshua  and  Caleb,  two  of  the 
spies,  rent  their  clothes,  (7)  and 
spake  unto  the  whole  congregation 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  saying. 
The  land  is  an  exceeding  good  land. 
.  .  (10.)  But  the  whole  congre- 
gation bade  stone  them  with  stones. 
And  the  glory  of  the  Lord  ap- 
peared in  the  tabernacle  before  all 
the  children  of  Israel.  .  (26-35.) 
And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  and 
Aaron  announcing  that  the  whole 
generation  of  rebels  should  die  in 
the  wilderness,  only  Caleb  and 
Joshua  surviving  to  enter  the 
promised  land.  (36-38.)  The 
other  ten  spies  die  of  plague  before 
the  Lord. 


milk  and  honey,  but  that  the 
people  were  strong,  with  great 
walled  cities.  (30.)  And  Caleb 
stilled  the  people  before  Moses, 
saying,  Let  us  go  up  at  once  and 
possess  it ;  for  we  are  well  able  to 
overcome  it.  (31.)  But  the  men 
who  went  up  with  him  said, 
We  be  not  able  to  go  up  against 
the  people,  for  they  are  stronger 
than  we,  .  .  (32)  and  all  the 
people  that  we  saw  in  it  are 
men  of  great  stature,  (33)  and  there 
we  saw  the  giants,  etc.  .  .  (xiv. 
1.)  And  the  people  wept  that 
night.  .  .  .  (4.)  And  they  said 
one  to  another,  Let  us  make  a 
captain  and  return  to  Egypt.  Here 
there  is  a  lacuna  which  seems  to  have 
contained  a  remonstrance  by  Moses  or 
Caleb,  of  which  verses  8,  9  are  a  frag - 
TTient.  The  thread  is  resumed  in  verse 
11.  (11-25.)  And  the  Lord  said 
unto  Moses,  How  long  will  this 
people  provoke  me  1  etc.  I  will 
smite  them  with  pestilence,  and  dis- 
inherit them,  and  make  of  thee  a 
greater  nation  and  mightier  than 
they.  Moses  intercedes  for  the 
people,  and  obtains  forgiveness  for 
them.  But  the  rebellious  genera- 
tion must  die  in  the  wilderness,  and 
shall  not  see  the  land  of  promise, 
with  the  sole  exception  of  Caleb. 
"  To-morrow  turn  ye,  and  get  ye 
into  the  wilderness.''  .  .  .  (39-45.) 
When  this  sentence  is  conveyed  to 
the  people  they  mourn  greatly,  and 
insist  on  repairing  their  error  by 
an  attack  on  theCanaanite  frontier, 
in  which  they  undergo  defeat. 

These  accounts  are  plainly  independent,  and  each  of  them 
is  nearly  complete  in  itself,  though  that  in  the  right  hand 
column  has  lost  its  beginning  and  a  few  links  at  other  points. 
In  it  the  spies  start  from  Kadesh,  go  no  farther  than  Hebron, 

26 


402  KORAH,    DATHAN  lect.  xiii 

and  report  very  favourably  of  the  land,  were  it  not  that  the 
inhabitants  are  too  strong  to  be  conquered.  The  only  one 
who  dissents  from  this  judgment  is  Caleb,  and  he  alone  is  ex- 
empted from  the  sentence  of  death  in  the  wilderness.  In  the 
other  account  the  spies  start  from  the  wilderness  of  Paran, 
reach  the  extreme  north  of  Palestine,  and  report  tliat  the  land 
is  one  in  which  it  is  hardly  possible  to  live  (xiii.  32  ;  comp. 
Ezek.  xxxvi.  13).  Caleb  and  Joshua,  on  the  other  hand,  say 
that  the  land  is  good,  and  they  two  are  exempted  from 
the  judgment  of  God  against  the  rebels.  Of  these  two 
accounts  the  first  is  followed  in  every  point  in  Deut.  i.  22-36, 
39,  40,-^  and  also  in  Josh.  xiv.  6-14,  save  that  in  this  passage 
some  glossator  has  added  in  verse  6  the  words  "  and  concern- 
ing thee,"  thus  including  Joshua  among  the  spies,  against  the 
plain  sense  of  verse  8.  Thus  we  see  that  the  narrative  which 
includes  Joshua  among  the  spies  is  later  than  Deuteronomy  ; 
and  in  fact  it  is  assigned  to  the  priestly  group  by  its  style 
and  characteristic  expressions.  JSTote,  for  example,  that  in  it 
God  speaks  to  Moses  and  Aaron,  as  is  common  in  the  priestly 
laws,  and  that  the  people  are  spoken  of  as  "  the  congregation  " 
(edah),  a  term  that  never  occurs  in  the  non-priestly  parts 
of  the  Hexateuch,  and  is  very  rare  in  the  other  historical 
books. 

When  we  pass  on  to  chap.  xvi.  we  again  find  signs  of 
mixture  in  the  narrative.  Taken  as  a  whole,  as  we  now  read 
it,  Num.  xvi.  is  priestly,  i.e.  the  events  it  details  and  the  way 
of  telling  them  read  smoothly  enough  with  the  chapters  that 
follow  and  with  the  general  tenor  of  the  priestly  legislation. 
But  Dathan  and  Abiram,  the  Eeubenites,  who  object  to  the 

^  Verses  37,  38  do  not  make  against  this  ;  for  they  do  not  imply  that 
Joshua  was  one  of  the  spies.  But  they  disturb  the  context,  and  probably  are  an 
addition  to  the  original  text  of  Deuteronomy  ;  for  God's  anger  with  Moses  and 
the  appointment  of  Joshua  as  his  successor  belong  to  a  different  place,  and  have 
no  connection  with  the  matter  of  the  spies.  Further,  the  first  words  of  verse 
39  as  far  as  "a  prey"  are  wanting  in  LXX.,  and  have  been  inserted  from 
Xum.  xiv.  31  (priestly)  by  a  late  hand.     Comp.  Dillmann  on  the  passage. 


LECT.  XIII 


AND    ABIRAM  403 


civil  authority  exercised  by  Moses,  have  nothing  in  connnon 
with  Korah,  who  objects  to  the  special  claims  of  priestly 
sanctity  put  forth  by  Moses  and  Aaron.  This,  of  course, 
proves  nothing  by  itself;  for  modern  as  well  as  ancient 
history  is  full  of  examples  of  the  union  of  distinct  political 
parties  against  a  common  antagonist.  But  the  curious  thing 
is  that  Korah  on  the  one  hand,  Dathan  and  Abiram  on  the 
other,  are  separate  not  only  in  their  aims  but  in  their  action 
and  in  their  doom.  In  verse  1,  and  again  in  verses  24,  27, 
all  three  are  mentioned  together  in  a  formal  way  (which  may 
very  well  be  due  to  an  editor),  but  in  substance  the  revolt 
of  Korah  and  that  of  Dathan  and  Abiram  are  quite  distinct. 
The  former  and  his  adherents  are  challenged  by  Moses  to 
appear  before  the  tabernacle  in  an  act  of  priestly  service,  and, 
accepting  the  challenge,  are  consumed  by  fire  from  the  Lord  ; 
the  latter  refuse  to  meet  Moses,  and  are  swallowed  up  by 
earthquake  in  their  tents.  Now  in  Deut.  xi.  6  the  revolt 
and  catastrophe  of  Dathan  and  Abiram  are  referred  to  with- 
out one  word  of  reference  to  Korah :  can  we  doubt,  then, 
that  the  old  history,  prior  to  Deuteronomy,  which  we  have 
recognised  in  one  of  the  constituent  elements  of  Num.  13,  14, 
reappears  also  in  chap.  xvi.  in  the  verses  which  speak  of 
Dathan  and  Abiram  and  are  silent  about  Korah  ?  It  is 
Korah's  part  of  the  story  that  has  to  do  wdth  the  privileges 
of  Levi  and  Aaron,  i.e.  with  the  theory  of  the  priestly  law 
and  narrative  ;  and  so  we  have  another  proof  that  the  priestly 
system  is  later  than  Deuteronomy.^ 

^  The  beginning  of  the  pre-Deuteronomic  narrative  of  the  revolt  of  Dathan 
and  Abiram  is  lost,  save  a  fragment  giving  the  names  of  the  rebels  in  verse  1. 
But  from  verse  12  onwards  the  story  is  complete  as  follows  : — (12-14.)  Moses 
summons  Dathan  and  Abiram,  Avho  refuse  to  obey  or  to  acknowledge  his  right 
to  play  the  prince.  (15.)  And  Moses  was  very  wroth,  and  said,  I  have  not 
taken  one  ass  from  them,  neither  have  I  hurt  one  of  them  [which  imj)lies  that 
his  judicial  impartiality  in  civil  matters  was  the  thing  impugned].  (25,  26.) 
Moses,  followed  by  the  elders,  goes  to  Dathan  and  Abiram,  and  warns  the 
people  to  withdraw  from  the  rebels  and  their  tents.  (27  b.)  And  Dathan  and 
Abiram  came  out  and  stood  in  the  door  of  their  tents,  etc.     (28-31.)  Moses 


404  ISRAEL,    MOAB  lect.  xiii 

From  Exodus  xxv.  down  to  Numbers  xix.,  I  have  been 
able  to  treat  the  priestly  document  as  the  main  stock  of  the 
narrative,  accepting  the  burden  of  proof  when  I  undertake  to 
show  that  it  is  interrupted  from  time  to  time  by  extracts 
from  other  sources.  And  the  same  way  of  approaching  the 
question  may  also  be  applied  to  Num.  xxv.  6  -  xxxvi.  13, 
where,  except  in  chap,  xxxii.,  there  is  nothing  to  suggest 
plurality  of  authorship.^ 

This  whole  section  may  safely  be  assigned  to  tlie  priestly 
group ;  for  it  consists  partly  of  laws,  conceived  and  set  forth 
in  the  priestly  manner,  partly  of  histories,  in  which  Eleazar, 
the  son  and  successor  of  Aaron,  has  all  the  precedence  proper 
to  him  under  the  priestly  code,  and  partly  of  statistics  and 
lists,  for  which  the  priestly  narrator  has  a  special  predilection. 
The  list  of  stations  in  the  wilderness  journey  is  very  useful 
as  a  check  on  the  analysis  of  the  preceding  history.  Tor 
example,  we  have  seen  that  in  the  older  narrative  the  spies 
went  forth  from  Kadesh,  but  in  the  priestly  narrative  from 
the  wilderness  of  Paran.     And  accordingly  in  Num.  xxxiii. 

aDnounces  that  the  rebels  will  be  swalloAved  up  alive  ;  and  straightway  the 
ground  clave  asunder,  (32  a)  and  the  earth  opened  her  mouth  and  swallowed 
up  them  and  their  tents  ;  (33)  and  they  and  all  that  appertained  to  them 
went  down  alive  into  the  pit,  etc.  ;  (34)  and  all  Israel  seeing  it  fled  in  terror. 

The  full  explanation  of  the  remainder  of  the  chapter  cannot  be  effected 
without  distinguishing  two  strata  in  the  priestly  narrative  ;  see  Kuenen  in 
Theol.  Tijdschrift,  xii.  (1878),  p.  139  sqq.,  whose  analysis  has  commanded 
general  assent. 

^  This  section  of  the  priestly  document  begins  abruptly,  and  something 
has  been  lost.  For  the  presupposition  of  xxv.  6  sqq.  is  that  the  Israelites 
were  seduced  into  filthy  idolatry  by  the  Midianites,  and  were  smitten  with 
a  plague  which  was  stayed  by  Phinehas's  act  of  judgment.  Verses  1-5  do  not 
correspond  with  this.  The  seducers  are  not  the  Midianites  (who  in  fact  are 
quite  out  of  place  in  the  plains  of  Moab),  but  the  women  of  Moab.  Further, 
though  a  plague  seems  to  be  implied  in  verses  3,  4,  it  is  stayed  in  quite  a 
different  way  by  Moses  (ver.  4)  or  by  the  judges  of  the  people  (ver.  5).  Note 
also  that  verses  3,  5  (and  Deiit.  iv.  3)  speak  of  Baal-Peor,  i.e.  the  local  deity  of 
Mount  Peor  (xxiii.  28),  whereas  in  verse  18,  and  again  in  xxxi.  16,  as  also 
in  the  priestly  part  of  Joshua  (xxii.  17),  Peor  is  the  name  of  the  god. 

For  the  compound  chap,  xxxii.  see  Driver,  p.  64  ;  but  especially  two  papers 
by  Kuenen  in  Theol.  Tijdschrifty  xi.  (1877). 


LECT.  XIII 


AND    BALAAM  405 


36  the  Hebrews  do  not  reach  Kadesh  till  near  the  close  of 
their  wanderings. 

In  Numbers  xx.-xxiv.,  on  the  other  hand,  the  phenomena 
are  complicated,  and  one  can  see  that  a  great  part  of  the 
narrative  belongs  to  the  non-priestly  and  pre-Deuteronomic 
sources.  To  these  we  must  reckon,  first  of  all,  the  whole 
episode  of  Balaam  (chaps,  xxii.-xxiv.).  For,  apart  from  con- 
siderations of  language  and  style,  which  it  is  impossible  to 
set  forth  in  this  place,  we  note  an  absolute  inconsistency 
between  these  chapters  and  the  reference  to  Balaam  in  the 
priestly  chapter  xxxi.  In  the  former,  Balaam,  who,  though 
no  friend  to  Israel,  is  careful  to  avoid  Jehovah's  anger, 
returns  to  his  home  on  the  Euphrates,  i.e.  to  Mesopotamia,^ 
as  soon  as  God  has  turned  his  curse  into  a  blessing.  But 
in  Num.  xxxi.  8,  16  Balaam  is  found  among  the  Midianites, 
i.e.  in  the  country  between  Edom  and  the  Eed  Sea,  where  he 
has  been  engaged  in  devising  the  seduction  of  Israel  through 
the  worship  of  Peor.  And  once  more  we  observe  that  it  is 
the  non-priestly  conception  of  Balaam  that  appears  in  Deut. 
xxiii.  4,  5  [Heb.  5,  6]  and  in  the  eighth -century  prophet 
Micah. 

There  remain  chaps,  xx.  xxi.  In  chap.  xx.  the  death  of 
Aaron  and  consecration  of  Eleazar  are  evidently  priestly.^ 
And  this  carries  with  it  a  part  at  least  of  xx.  2-13,  where 
Moses  and  Aaron  are  sentenced  to  die  in  the  wilderness. 
But  in  what  remains   of  chaps,   xx.  xxi.   there  is  nothing 

1  In  Num.  xxii.  5  read  with  R.  V.  "to  Pethor,  which  is  by  the  River,  to 
the  land,"  etc.     The  River  is  the  Euphrates  ;  comp.  Deut.  xxiii.  4  (Heb.  5). 

-  This  is  one  of  the  few  priestly  passages  to  which  the  Deuteronomist  has 
been  supposed  to  make  reference.  But  according  to  Deut.  x.  6  Aaron  dies  at 
Mosera  (the  same  as  Moseroth  of  Num.  xxxiii.  30),  a  place  separated  from 
Mount  Hor  by  six  marches.  Thus,  if  the  text  of  Deuteronomy  is  in  order, 
the  author  had  a  different  account  of  Aaron's  death,  and  did  not  draw  from  P. 
It  is,  however,  very  plain  that  the  words  of  Deut.  x.  6  following  "Mosera" 
are  a  late  and  unauthorised  gloss,  since  according  to  verse  8  the  first  insti- 
tution of  the  Levitical  priesthood  did  not  take  place  till  a  later  stage  of  the 
wanderings. 


406  THE   JOURNEY 


LECT.  XIII 


priestly  except  one  or  two  notes  of  stations  which  correspond 
with  chap,  xxxiii.  (xx.  1  a,  xxi.  4  a  to  the  word  "  Hor,"  xxi. 
10,  11,  and  also  xxii.  1).  This  appears  from  the  following 
considerations.  In  xx.  1  })  the  people  are  still  encamped  at 
Kadesh,  on  the  southern  border  of  Canaan,  whence  the  spies 
were  sent  out.  From  Kadesh  (ver.  14)  they  send  messengers 
to  the  Edomites,  who  occupied  the  whole  region  between 
Moab  and  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  asking  passage  through  their 
country.  This  was  refused,  and  accordingly  there  was  no 
way  to  reach  Eastern  Palestine  without  another  desert 
journey  all  round  Edom  by  the  head  of  the  gulf.  And  so 
we  read  (xx.  21) :  "  And  Israel  turned  aside  from  him  [Edom] 
(xxi.  4)  in  the  direction  of  the  Eed  Sea  to  compass  the  land 
of  Edom."  ^  Then  follow  the  details  of  the  journey,  with  a 
number  of  stations  that  do  not  reappear  in  chap,  xxxiii. 
The  Hebrews  emerge  from  the  desert  in  the  district  of  the 
Arnon,  and  the  conquest  of  Eastern  Canaan  follows.  This 
great  circuit  through  the  wilderness  from  Kadesh  to  the 
Arnon  was  inevitable  when  the  people's  faithlessness  caused 
the  direct  attack  on  Southern  Canaan  to  be  given  up  ;  and 
the  sufferings  it  involved  were  the  natural  punishment  of 
their  want  of  faith.  But  there  was  no  arbitrary  marching 
up  and  down  the  wilderness.  According  to  Deut.  i.  46,  ii.  1, 
a  passage  which  quite  agrees  with  all  that  has  survived  of 
the  older  narrative,  the  Israelites  spent  a  long  time  at 
Kadesh,  and  only  left  it  to  "compass  Mount  Seir."  The 
priestly  account,  as  appears  by  comparison  of  Num.  xiv. 
33  sqc[.  with  the  lists  of  Num.  xxxiii.,  is  quite  different. 
Here  the  greater  part  of  the  forty  years  is  spent  on  purpose- 
less wandering  as  far  as  Ezion-gaber,  on  the  Gulf  of  Akaba 
(xxxiii.  35),  and  thence  to  Kadesh,  which,  according  to  chap, 
xxxiii.,  appears  to  be  reached  for  the  first  time  in  the  last 

^  xxi,  1-3  is  a  little  separate  narrative,  which  is  hardly  in  place  where  it 
stands  ;  comp.  Judges  i.  16,  17- 


LECT.  XIII 


FROM    KADESH  407 


year  of  the  wilderness  journey.  In  the  fifth  month  of  the 
fortieth  year  the  Hebrews  are  still  at  Mount  Hor,  but  one 
stage  from  Kadesh ;  a  view  of  the  course  of  Israel's  wander- 
ings plainly  inconsistent  with  chap.  xxi.  Indeed,  one  is  led 
to  think  that  the  priestly  narrator  did  not  realise  how  wide 
a  circuit  lay  between  Kadesh  and  the  plains  of  Moab,  and 
how  much  time  the  entire  conquest  of  the  kingdoms  of 
Sihon  and  Og  must  have  occupied,  else  he  could  hardly 
have  left  no  more  than  a  brief  seven  months  for  all  the 
events  between  the  death  of  Aaron  and  the  passage  of  the 
Jordan  (Num.  xxxiii.  38  compared  with  Deut.  i.  3,  Josh, 
iv.  19). 

We  have  now  run  in  a  cursory  way  through  the  whole  nar- 
rative of  Israel's  adventures  between  Sinai  and  the  plains  of 
Moab.  The  results  of  such  a  first  survey  ought  not  to  be 
taken  as  more  than  provisional,  but  they  bear  out,  so  far  as 
they  go,  two  important  conclusions  at  which  we  had  already 
arrived  by  another  path.  (1)  They  show  us  that  we  must 
distinf^uish  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  between  a 
priestly  series  of  laws,  accompanied  by  narratives  in  harmony 
with  the  priestly  laws,  and  another  series  of  narratives  that 
do  not  presuppose  the  Aaronic  priesthood  and  its  sanctuary. 
(2)  They  show  us,  too,  that  only  the  latter  series  of  narratives 
is  presupposed  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  Taking  note  of 
these  conclusions,  our  next  task  is  to  subject  them  to  a  further 
test  by  an  inductive  method.  We  have  provisionally  marked 
out  the  text  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  into  two 
main  groups.  Let  us  carefully  collect  all  characteristics  of 
language,  all  mannerisms  of  style,  in  each  provisional  group, 
and  see  whether  they  bear  out  our  classification,  or  point  to 
a  cross  division.  In  the  latter  case  we  shall  have  cause  to 
amend  our  analysis :  otherwise  it  will  be  powerfully  con- 
firmed. This  is  a  part  of  the  argument  that  I  cannot 
profitably  go  into  without  citing  a  mass  of  Hebrew  phrases ; 


408  CHARACTERISTICS    OF  lect.  xiii 

but  surely  in  sucli  a  matter  the  English  reader  may  safely 
trust  to  Oriental  scholars.  Those  who  are  too  sceptical  to  do 
this  may  consult  Driver,  who  gives  the  main  results  of  the 
linguistic  analysis  with  great  care  :  they  will  find  that  the 
results  of  the  linguistic  test  have  been  tabulated,  and  that 
they  confirm  all  that  we  have  hitherto  learned  in  a  pro- 
visional way  on  a  broader  line  of  inquiry.  It  is  shown  by 
tables  and  figures  which  cannot  be  gainsaid  that  the  priestly 
document  or  group  has  a  distinct  style  and  vocabulary  of  its 
own,  and  further  that  its  peculiarities,  whether  of  grammar 
or  of  lexicon,  forbid  us  to  assign  the  priestly  writings  to 
an  early  date,  and  allow,  if  they  do  not  compel,  us  to 
place  it  after  Ezekiel,  as  the  historic-legal  argument  requires. 
Though  the  English  reader  cannot  hope  to  make  himself 
master  of  these  linguistic  arguments,  he  may  learn  to  ap- 
preciate their  force  by  a  careful  attention  to  points  of  style 
and  manner  that  do  not  disappear  in  translation.  Thus 
among  phrases  characteristic  of  the  priestly  group  he  may 
note  such  as  these :  "  throughout  your  generations,"  "  after 
their  families,"  the  technical  term  "  father's  house  "  for  a  clan 
or  family,  the  habitual  designation  of  Israel  as  a  "  congrega- 
tion "  (^edali),  and  of  the  princes  as  ''chief  of  the  congregation," 
or  the  like ;  also  standing  formulas  like  "  this  is  the  thing  that 
the  Lord  hath  commanded,"  and  "  according  to  the  word  \lit. 
mouth]  of  the  Lord."  And  in  general  he  can  observe  that 
the  priestly  style  is  formal  and  mannered,  deficient,  as  com- 
pared with  the  older  narratives,  in  freedom  and  variety  of 
expression.  With  this  goes  a  love  for  formal  headings  and 
subscriptions,  and  a  monotonous  way  of  piling  up  particulars 
which  reaches  its  climax  in  Num.  vii.  No  one  with  the 
smallest  knowledge  of  literature  will  believe  that  this  chapter 
comes  from  the  same  pen  that  wrote  the  exquisite  history 
of  Joseph  and  the  other  masterpieces  of  Pentateuchal  nar- 
rative. 


LECT.  XIII  THE   PRIESTS     CODE  409 

But  beneath  all  these  points  of  phrase  and  style  there  lies 
something  deeper  and  more  fundamentally  characteristic  ;  to 
wit,  no  small  tincture  of  the  abstract  and  unreal  way  of  con- 
structing the  sacred  history,  that  we  saw  in  Lecture  V.  to  be 
characteristic  of  Eabbinical  Judaism,  and  of  some  later  parts 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Moses  of  Exodus  xxxii.-xxxiv., 
or  lumbers  xi.  xii.,  with  his  swift  and  hot  anger  on  the  one 
hand,  his  tender  and  passionate  intercession  on  the  other,  is  a 
living  man ;  the  Moses  of  the  priestly  narrative  is  a  lay-figure 
only  fit  to  convey  to  the  people  rules  about  sacred  upholstery 
and  millinery.  When  the  people  rebel  in  the  priestly  story, 
Moses  and  Aaron  at  once  get  the  better  of  them  by  a  simple 
and  uniform  process.  They  have  only  to  fall  down  on  their 
faces  in  supplication  (Num.  xiv.  5,  xvi.  4,  xx.  6)  to  obtain  an 
immediate  supernatural  interposition.  The  older  narratives 
are  not  less  full  of  the  supernatural,  but  they  do  not  reduce 
it  in  this  way  to  a  mechanical  uniformity,  and  they  allow  us 
to  see  a  natural  harmony  between  the  divine  action  and  the 
historical  circumstances,  which  is  quite  lost  in  the  later 
account.  Thus  in  the  old  story  the  wilderness  wanderings 
from  Kadesh  to  Arnon  have  a  purpose  as  well  as  a  penal 
effect ;  they  bring  the  people  to  another  and  easier  point  for 
the  attack  of  Canaan.  But  in  the  priestly  story  they  are 
mere  wanderings  for  the  sake  of  wandering.  Or  again  in  the 
priestly  story  the  camping-places  of  the  people  are  absolutely 
determined  by  the  miraculous  cloud  (Num.  ix.  15  sqq).  In 
the  other  narrative  the  cloud  accompanies  the  march,  but  the 
local  knowledge  of  Hobab  is  called  into  requisition  in  the 
choice  of  places  to  camp  (Num.  x.  29  sqg[.).  Even  to  the  old 
history  the  wilderness  journey  is  a  continued  portent,  in  which 
the  play  of  human  causes  falls  into  the  background,  and  is 
obscured  by  the  ever-present  splendour  of  the  divine  guidance, 
but  in  the  priestly  history  the  liuman  and  even  the  physical 
background  disappears  altogether.     Consider,  for  example,  the 


410  CHARACTERISTICS    OF  lect.  xiii 

gorgeousness  of  the  priestly  tabernacle  and  its  service,  the 
gold  and  silver,  the  rich  hangings  of  rare  purple,  the  incense 
and  unguents  of  costly  spices.  How  came  these  things  to  be 
found  in  the  wilderness  ?  It  is  absurd  to  say,  as  is  commonly 
said,  that  the  tabernacle  was  furnished  from  the  spoil  of  the 
Egyptians  (Exod.  xi.  2,  xii.  35),  and  that  the  serfs  who  left 
Egypt  carrying  on  their  shoulders  a  wretched  provision  of 
dough  tied  up  in  their  cloaks  (Exod.  xii.  34),  were  at  the 
same  time  laden  with  all  the  wealth  of  Asia  and  Africa,  in- 
cluding such  strange  furniture  for  a  long  journey  on  foot  as 
stores  of  purple  yarn,  and  the  like.  But  it  is  not  worth  while 
to  spend  time  over  these  details.  The  decisive  point  is  that 
the  Mosaic  tabernacle  is  not  the  tabernacle  of  the  old  pre- 
Deuteronomic  history  of  Moses,  and  that  it  is  equally  un- 
known to  the  history  of  the  Former  Prophets.  It  is,  in  short, 
not  a  fact  but  an  idea,  an  imaginary  picture  of  such  a 
tabernacle  as  might  serve  as  a  pattern  for  the  service  of  the 
second  Temple.^  By  much  the  greater  part  of  the  variations 
of  the  priestly  narrative  from  the  older  story  flow  directly 
from  the  author's  design  to  exhibit  the  whole  ritual  system 
as  complete  and  at  work  in  the  wilderness ;  in  short,  we  have 
here  to  do  not  with  a  fresh  source  for  ancient  history,  but  with 
a  body  of  legal  Haggada,  borrowing  its  outlines  from  the  older 
narratives,  but  treating  them  with  absolute  freedom,  so  as  to 
produce  a  picture  of  the  ideal  institutions  of  Israel's  worship 
projected  back  into  the  Mosaic  age.  Such  divergences  of  the 
priestly  narrative  from  the  older  history  of  the  wilderness 
wanderings  as  are  not  directly  explicable  on  this  principle 
are  yet  connected  with  it  in  an  indirect  way  ;  the  most  char- 
acteristic parts  of  the  old  story  being  omitted,  or  reduced  to  a 
bare  and  not  very  exact  summary,  if  they  do  not  fall  in  with 
the  main  purpose  of  the  priestly  document.     Throughout  the 

1  The  arrangements  agree  with  those  of  the  second  Temple  in  various 
particulars  where  Solomon's  Temple  was  different,  e.g.  there  is  one  golden 
candlestick  and  not  ten  {supra,  p.  143). 


LECT.  XIII  THE    PRIESTS'    CODE  411 

priestly  narrative  Israel  is  not  so  much  a  nation  as  a  church, 
and  when  it  is  not  engaged  in  some  act  of  rebellion  against 
Moses  and  Aaron,  it  is  employed  in  receiving  legal  instruc- 
tion or  discharging  ritual  duties.  Even  the  rebellions  have 
interest  for  this  narrator  only  in  so  far  as  they  elucidate  some 
point  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  (Korah),  or  have  a  par- 
ticular importance  for  the  history  of  the  priesthood,  as  when 
the  sedition  at  Meribah  leads  to  the  exclusion  of  Aaron  from 
the  promised  land,  or  the  affair  of  Baal-Peor  earns  for  Phine- 
has  and  his  descendants  a  promise  of  everlasting  priesthood. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  golden  calf  and  a  whole  series  of  later 
rebellions,  which  had  no  simificance  for  the  ecclesiastical 
polity  of  Israel,  are  passed  by  in  silence :  it  is  true  that  the 
affair  of  the  spies  is  mentioned,  but  as  this  was  the  cause  of 
the  prolonged  sojourn  in  the  wilderness  it  evidently  could  not 
be  omitted.  Finally,  one  whole  side  of  the  history,  the  rela- 
tions of  the  Hebrews  with  the  Kenites,  with  Edom,  with 
Moab,  is  ignored ;  for  this  w^as  not  ecclesiastical  but  civil 
history.  Even  the  conquest  of  Eastern  Palestine  seems  to 
have  been  passed  over  in  a  word  ;  to  compensate  for  this  we 
have  a  war  with  Midian  ;  but  the  actual  campaign  is  disposed 
of  in  a  couple  of  verses,  without  the  loss  of  a  single  man,  and 
is  merely  a  text  on  which  to  hang  a  long  law  of  booty,  in 
whicli  the  claims  of  the  sanctuary  are  duly  attended  to.-^ 

The  middle  books  offer  the  best  field  on  which  to  begin 
the  analysis  of  the  priestly  element  in  the  Pentateuch ;  for 
here  we  have  a  great  mass  of  priestly  writing,  and  are  soon 
able  to  form  a  clear  idea  of  the  character  of  the  narrative,  and  to 
collect  a  list  of  distinctive  words  and  phrases  that  may  serve 
as  our  guides  in  dissecting  complicated  chaj  ters.  It  is  much 
easier  to  commence  one's  critical  studies  iu  the  wilderness 
than  to  start  with  the  Book  of  Genesis  and  work  onwards. 

1  Comp.  what  has  been  said  above,  p.  386,   where  we  have  seen  that  the 
main  point  in  the  law  of  booty  only  goes  back  to  David. 


412  THE    priests'    code 


LECT.  XIIT 


But  if  you  have  followed  my  argument  thus  far  you  will  have 
no  difficulty  in  pursuing  the  thread  of  the  priestly  writing 
through  the  rest  of  the  Hexateuch  with  the  aid  of  a  good 
manual  of  Biblical  Introduction.  In  what  remains,  therefore. 
I  will  be  very  brief,  and  indicate  results  without  dwelling  on 
processes. 

First,  then,  as  regards  the  priestly  elements  subsequent  to 
the  Book  of  Numbers.  In  Deuteronomy  these  are  limited  to 
a  few  verses  about  the  death  of  Moses,  chap,  xxxii.  48-52, 
the  first  words  of  xxxiv.  1,  and  xxxiv.  8,  9.  So,  too,  the  first 
twelve  chapters  of  Joshua  contain  only  occasional  traces  of 
the  priestly  style  and  manner,  in  one  or  two  precise  dates 
answering  to  the  priestly  chronology  (iv.  9,  v.  10-12),  and 
especially  in  the  story  of  the  Gibeonites  (ix.  Id  b,  17-21 ; 
"  congregation,"  "  princes  of  the  congregation  "),  and  how  they 
were  made  slaves  of  the  sanctuary.  In  the  second,  or  statis- 
tical, part  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  it  is  easy  to  prove  that  the 
lists  of  tribal  settlements  and  boundaries  are  not  all  from  one 
source,  but  the  nature  of  the  matter  does  not  give  us  much 
opportunity  of  using  linguistic  criteria  to  determine  which  of 
the  Pentateuchal  sources  are  used.  There  are,  however,  a 
sufficient  number  of  verses  containing  characteristic  priestly 
matter  or  phrases  (e.g.  xiii.  15-32,  xiv.  1-5,  xv.  1,  20,  "by  their 
families,"  xvi.  8,  etc.)  to  make  it  clear  that  the  priestly  narrative 
gave  a  statistical  account  of  the  settlement  of  Canaan.  To  this 
account  belongs  chap.  xxi.  (the  Levitical  and  priestly  cities), 
and  also  chap.  xx.  (in  the  text  of  the  LXX.).  In  the  priestly 
narrative  the  allotment  of  territory  is  made  by  Eleazar  the 
priest,  %vith  Joshua  and  the  heads  of  "  fathers'  houses  "  (xiv. 
1),  and  applies  to  all  the  tribes  alike;  but  there  is  another 
account  in  chap,  xviii.,  according  to  which  Judah  and  Joseph 
are  first  settled,  apparently  without  the  use  of  the  lot  (comp. 
xiv.  6  sqq.,  xvii.  14  sqq.),  while  the  lots  for  the  remaining 
seven  western  tribes  are   cast  at  Shiloh  by  Joshua  alone. 


LECT.  XIII  IN   JOSHUA  413 

The  mass  of  the  narrative  of  Joshua  is  clearly  not  priestly, 
and  does  not  presuppose  the  priestly  institutions.  Chap, 
xxii.  9-34  is  a  very  peculiar  piece,  which  has  its  closest 
parallel  in  Judges  xx.  Both  cliapters  are  for  the  most  part 
post-priestly  and  certainly  not  historical. 

It  is  probable  that  the  priestly  document  proper,  i.e.  the 
main  priestly  story,  as  distinct  from  such  late  additions  as 
chap,  xxii.,  treated  the  conquest  of  Canaan  very  briefly.  The 
story  of  the  Gibeonites  was  important  in  connection  with  the 
sanctuary,  and  here  alone  have  we  any  sign  that  the  narrative 
was  more  than  the  barest  epitome.  In  like  manner  the  con- 
quest of  Eastern  Canaan  is  not  described  in  the  priestly  part 
of  Numbers.  There  was  no  legal  application  to  be  made  of  a 
war  of  extermination  such  as  could  not  occur  again,  and  so, 
in  order  to  bring  in  a  law  about  ordinary  war  and  captives, 
the  priestly  writer  passes  over  Sihon  and  spends  his  strength 
on  a  war  with  Midian,  of  which  the  old  sources  know  nothing. 
On  the  other  hand,  an  account  of  the  settlement  in  Canaan, 
according  to  law,  made  the  natural  completion  of  his  work, 
rounding  out  the  delineation  of  Israel's  sacred  institutions. 
It  should  be  observed  that  Ezekiel's  legislation  also  ends 
with  a  chapter  of  sacred  topography. 

I  now  go  back  to  consider  the  priestly  element  in  Genesis 
and  the  early  chapters  of  Exodus.  Here  the  analysis  is  more 
dependent,  in  the  first  instance,  on  linguistic  arguments,  since, 
before  the  Sinaitic  revelation,  there  can  be  no  direct  reference 
to  the  characteristic  priestly  institutions.  But  an  important 
general  clue  to  the  treatment  of  the  patriarchal  period  by  the 
priestly  source  is  obtained  by  considering  the  following  series 
of  passages  : — 

Gen.  xvii.   Jehovah   makes   a  covenant   with   Abraham   under   the 

name  of  El-Shaddai  (A.  V.  "  the  Almighty  God  "),  and 

gives  him  the  seal  of  circumcision. 

„     xxviii.  1-5.   Isaac  blesses  Jacob  in  the  name   of  El-Shaddai, 

and  with  reference  to  the  divine  promises  in  chap.  xvii. 


414  THE   PRIESTS     CODE  lect.  xiii 

Gen.  XXXV.  9-15.  God  (Eloliim)  apjDears  to  Jacob,  clianges  His  name 
to  Israel,  reveals  Himself  as  El-Sliaddai,  and  renews 
the  same  promises. 
„  xlviii.  3-6.  Jacob  rehearses  to  Joseph  the  revelation  of  El- 
Sbaddai  last  cited,  and  adopts  his  grandchildren 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh  as  his  own  sons  [i.e.  as  two 
full  tribes,  in  whicli  character  they  always  appear  in 
the  priestly  document]. 

Exod.  vi.  2-8.  God  (Elohim)  speaks  to  Moses,  saying,  "  I  am  Jeho- 
vah. And  I  appeared  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
as  El-Shaddai,  but  by  my  name  Jehovah  I  was  not 
known  to  them."  Then  follows  a  promise  of  deliver- 
ance in  terms  based  on  the  earlier  passages  already  cited. 

These  passages  are  in  substance  and  form  a  connected  series. 
They  must  all  be  from  one  pen,  and  the  pen  is  that  of  the 
priestly  narrator,  whose  characteristic  phrases  and  manner- 
isms are  not  to  be  mistaken,  especially  in  Gen.  xvii.  The 
priestly  narrator,  then,  regards  the  name  of  Jehovah  as  char- 
acteristic of  Mosaism,  and  accordingly  we  observe  that  he 
avoids  the  use  of  that  word  in  the  patriarchal  period,  employ- 
ing Elohim  in  its  place.  But  he  views  the  Mosaic  revelation 
as  based  on  a  previous  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  carries 
back  to  his  day  the  ordinance  of  circumcision,  which  in  the 
priestly  laws  is  taken  as  the  necessary  mark  of  admission 
into  the  community  of  true  religion  (Lev.  xii.  3  ;  Exod.  xii. 
44,  48). 

It  was  long  ago  observed  that  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  the 
names  Jehovah  and  Elohim  do  not  occur  at  random  but  in 
two  distinct  series  of  narratives,  which  generally  can  be 
separated  from  each  other  without  trouble.  And  when  we 
find  Jehovah  and  Elohim  alternating  in  the  same  narrative,  as 
in  the  story  of  the  Flood,  we  find  also,  on  closer  examination, 
that  the  story  is  composite  and  can  still  be  resolved  into  two 
threads,  one  Jahvistic  and  the  other  Elohistic  {supra,  p.  327  s^.). 
We  now  see  that  in  seeking  to  determine  the  priestly  elements 
in  Genesis  and  the  early  chapters  of  Exodus  we  may  begin  by 
setting  the  whole  Jahvistic  narrative  on  one  side. 


LECT.  XIII  IN"    GENESIS  415 

In  the  earlier  chapters  of  Genesis  all  that  remains  is 
priestly  ;  to  wit,  the  first  (and  more  abstract)  of  the  two 
stories  of  the  Creation  (Gen.  i,  1-ii.  4  a)  ;  then  a  line  of 
genealogy  from  Adam  to  Noah  (Gen.  v. ;  but  not  verse  29, 
which  uses  the  name  Jehovah  and  refers  to  the  Jahvistic 
story  of  the  Fall) ;  then  one  form  of  the  Flood-story  {sujpra, 
p.  329  sq),  which  was  necessary  to  the  writer's  legal  purpose 
because  the  Flood  was  followed  by  a  covenant  with  Noah 
(ix.  1-lV)  the  conditions  of  which  passed  over  into  Mosaism; 
then  another  series  of  genealogies  (parts  of  x.,  xi.  10-26),  and 
a  very  brief  sketch  of  Abraham's  life,  containing  little  more 
than  a  sequence  of  names  and  dates,  and  carrying  us  on  to 
the  covenant  of  chap,  xvii.^  Here  the  author  has  reached  a 
topic  of  legal  importance,  and  again  expands  into  copious  and 
somewhat  redundant  detail. 

About  this  point  it  becomes  plain  that  the  Jahvist  and 
the   priestly  writer   are   not   the   only  contributors   to    the 

^  It  may  be  instructive  to  give  the  priestly  story  of  the  first  ninety-nine 
years  of  Abraham's  life  in  full : — 

"  Now  these  are  the  generations  of  Terah  :  Terah  begat  Abram  and  Nahor 
and  Haran  ;  and  Haran  begat  Lot.  And  Terah  took  Abram  his  son,  and  Lot 
the  son  of  Haran  his  son's  son,  and  Sarai  his  daughter-in-law,  his  son 
Abram's  wife  ;  and  they  went  forth  Avith  them  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  to 
go  into  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  and  they  came  unto  Haran,  and  dwelt  there. 
And  the  days  of  Terah  were  two  hundred  and  five  years :  and  Terah  died 
in  Haran.  And  Abram  was  seventy-five  years  old  when  he  departed  out  of 
Haran.  And  Abram  took  Sarai  his  wife,  and  Lot  his  brother's  son,  and  all 
their  substance  that  they  had  gathered,  and  the  souls  that  they  had  gotten  in 
Haran  ;  and  they  went  forth  to  go  into  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  and  into  the 
land  of  Canaan  they  came.  And  the  land  was  not  able  to  bear  them  to  dwell 
together  :  for  their  substance  was  great,  so  that  they  could  not  dwell  together. 
So  they  separated  themselves  the  one  from  the  other.  Abram  dwelt  in  the 
land  of  Canaan,  and  Lot  dwelt  in  the  cities  of  the  plain.  And  Sarai  Abram's 
wife  bare  him  no  children.  And  Sarai  Abram's  wife  took  Hagar  her  Egyptian 
handmaid,  after  Abram  had  dwelt  ten  years  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  gave 
her  to  her  husband  Abram  to  be  his  wife.  And  Hagar  bare  Abram  a  son  : 
and  Abram  called  his  son*s  name,  which  Hagar  bare,  Ishmael.  And  Abram 
was  eighty-six  years  old,  when  Hagar  bare  Ishmael  to  Abram"  (xi.  27,  31, 
32 ;  xii.  4  &,  5  ;  xiii.  6,  11  &,  12  a  ;  xvi.  1  a,  3,  15,  16).  The  monotonous 
wordiness  is  as  characteristic  of  the  priestly  style  as  the  individual  ex- 
pressions. 


416  JAHVIST    AND    ELOHIST  lect.  xiii 

story  of  Genesis.  In  chap.  xiv.  we  meet  with  a  narrative 
that  stands  quite  by  itself,  and  is  probably  distinct  in  origin 
from  all  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch;  while  chap,  xv., 
though  it  contains  nothing  suggestive  of  the  priestly  hand, 
can  hardly  be  taken  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Jahvistic  docu- 
ment.^ In  the  latter  chapter  we  have  at  least  the  suspicion 
that  a  third  source  has  begun  to  show  itself,  and  the  suspicion 
is  raised  to  certainty  in  chap.  xx.  1-17  (Abraham  and  Abi- 
melech  at  Gerar),  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  narratives  in 
which  the  use  of  Elohim  is  associated  with  no  other  mark  of 
the  priestly  hand.  The  Elohist  (as  the  new  narrator  is 
usually  called)  has  a  style  and  characteristic  features  of  his 
own ;  but  in  language,  standpoint,  and  choice  of  matter  he 
stands  much  nearer  to  the  Jahvist  than  to  P  ;  and  his 
narratives,  taken  as  a  whole,  form  a  parallel  series  to  those 
of  the  Jahvist,  giving  the  same  or  similar  stories,  with  such 
variations  as  are  commonly  found  in  the  primitive  traditions 
of  ancient  races.  Thus  the  Elohistic  story  of  Abraham  and 
Abimelech  at  Gerar  (xx.  1-17)  is  a  traditional  variant  of  the 
Jahvistic  stories  of  Abraham  and  Pharaoh  (chap,  xii.),  and 
Isaac  and  Abimelech  (xxvi.  7-11).  Or  again  the  Jahvistic 
account  of  Jacob's  vision  in  Bethel  is  contained  in  xxviii. 
13-16,  19  ;  the  Elohistic  parallel  in  verses  11,  12,  17,  18, 
20-22.  The  ladder  with  the  angels,  the  anointed  stone,  and 
the  vow  are  only  in  the  Elohistic  verses,  and  this  is  the 
version  referred  to  in  the  subsequent  Elohistic  passages 
xxxi.  13,  xxxv.  1-8.  The  revelations  at  Bethel  form  one  of 
the  best  tests  for  the  threefold  critical  division  of  Genesis ; 
for  here  we  have  a  third  account  (Gen.  xxxv.  9-15),  which 
we  have  already  assigned  to  the  priestly  document.  These 
verses  are  not  the  continuation  of  the  Elohistic  story  im- 
mediately preceding  (verses  1-8),  but  a  separate  narrative, 
as  appears  especially  in  verse  15. 

^  The  analysis  of  this  chapter  is  still  uncertain. 


LECT.  XIII  IX    GENESIS  417 

I  may  add  one  more  illustration  of  the  relations  of  the 
Elohist  to  the  priestly  narrator  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
Jahvist  on  the  other.  In  the  Jahvistic  story  the  destiny 
of  Ishmael  is  revealed  to  Hagar  before  his  birth,  at  the  well 
Lahai-roi,  whither  she  has  fled  from  her  mistress's  hard  treat- 
ment (Gen.  xvi.  4-14).  In  the  Elohistic  version  a  similar 
revelation,  at  a  well,  is  given  after  she  and  her  son  are 
banished  (xxi.  8-21).  In  this  story  Ishmael  is  a  little  child 
("  playing,"  ver.  9,  not  "  mocking,"  as  A.  V.),  and  is  carried 
on  his  mother's  shoulder  (ver.  14,  where  read  with  LXX.  "  and 
he  put  the  child  on  her  shoulder  and  sent  her  away  " ;  ver. 
15).  But  according  to  the  priestly  chronology  Ishmael  was 
thirteen  years  old  a  year  before  Isaac's  birth,  and  so  at  this 
date  would  have  been  a  lad  of  fifteen  at  least. 

The  Jahvist  and  Elohist  together  are  responsible  for  the 
great  mass  of  the  patriarchal  history,  and  for  all  those  stories 
that  make  Genesis  one  of  the  most  delightful  of  books. 
What  remains  for  the  priestly  writer  is  meagre  enough  ;  the 
continuous  thread  of  his  narrative  is  no  more  than  a  string 
of  names,  dates,  and  other  dry  bones  of  history,  mainly  in 
systematic  form  under  the  standing  heading,  "These  are 
the  generations  of  .  .  ."  -^  Apart  from  the  El--Shaddai 
passages  already  noted,  perhaps^  the  only  place  where  he 
expands  into  fulness  is  chap,  xxiii.,  which  details  at  length 
how  Abraham  became  legal  possessor  of  an  inalienable  family 


^  The  successive  recurrences  of  this  phrase  are  the  clue  to  the  formal 
arrangement  of  the  priestly  narrative  in  Genesis,  as  the  El-Shaddai  passages 
are  the  clue  to  its  purpose  and  meaning  ;  comp.  Driver,  p.  5. 

2  I  say  "perhaps,"  that  I  may  not  seem  to  speak  positively  on  the 
difficult  chapter,  Gen.  xxxiv.  But  there  is  a  high  measure  of  probability 
that  everything  in  this  chapter  which  is  not  pre-Deuteronomic  belongs  to  a 
very  late  redaction,  subsecj^uent  to  the  union  of  the  older  sources  in  our 
present  Pentateuch  (so  Kuenen  and  now  also  Wellhausen). 

2  The  importance  which  P  attaches  to  this  subject  (to  which  he  returns 
in  XXV.  9  sq.,  xlix.  29  sqq.)  is  in  accordance  with  the  general  feelings  of  the 
Semites  ;  see  for  the  Arabs  "Wellhausen,  Jkste  Ar.  Held.  p.  160.      The  best 

27 


418  THE   PRIESTS     CODE  lect.  xiii 

The  same  abstract  brevity  prevails  in  tlie  opening  chapters 
of  Exodus  (i.  1-5,  7,  13,  14;  ii.  23  h,  25)  up  to  the  call  of 
Moses,  who  appears  suddenly  in  vi.  2,  without  any  account 
of  his  previous  life.  The  opening  of  his  mission  is  told  fully 
enough  in  chaps,  vi,  vii.  1-13,  with  this  difference  from  the 
older  story  that  from  the  first  he  demands  the  complete 
emancipation  of  his  people  and  not  merely  (as  in  v.  vii.  14-18, 
etc. ;  comp.  iii.  18)  leave  for  them  to  celebrate  a  feast  in 
the  wilderness.  Then  follow  brief  notices  of  the  plagues  of 
blood,  frogs,  mosquitoes  (A.  Y.  "  lice "),  and  plague-boils  on 
man  and  beast,^  while  the  final  judgment,  the  death  of  the 
firstborn  (xii.  12),  gives  occasion  for  a  full  legal  discussion  of 
the  Passover  (xii.  1-20,  28,  37  a,  40-51 ;  xiii.  1,  2).  The 
account  of  the  flight  and  the  deliverance  at  the  Eed  Sea  is 
again  meagre  (xiii.  20,  xiv.  1-4,  8,  9,  15-18,  21  first  and  last 
clause,  22,  23,  26,  27  a,  28,  29),  but  characteristic,  inasmuch 
as  the  east  wind  that  drives  back  the  sea  in  the  old  story 

illustrations  of  Gen.  xxiii.  are,  however,  to  be  found  in  the  inscriptions  on 
the  tombs  of  the  Nabatseans  of  Al-Hejr  (Euting,  Ndbatdische  Inschrr.  aus 
Aralien,  1885,  2^<^ssim)  and  the  Syrians  of  Palmyra,  where  the  inalienable 
character  of  the  family  grave  is  guarded  Avith  special  solicitude.  From  these 
parallels  we  may  perhaps  infer  that  Abraham's  care  to  secure  such  a  grave  is 
set  forth  as  a  pattern  for  his  descendants.  In  the  Jahvistic  narrative  Jacob 
desires  to  be  buried  with  his  fathers,  and  not  in  Egypt ;  but  the  place  where 
his  wake  was  held  (and  \vhere,  therefore,  in  all  probability,  his  grave  was, 
according  to  this  tradition)  is  not  the  cave  of  Machpelah,  but  the  Floor  of 
Atad  or  Abel-Mizraim  (Gen.  xlvii.  29-31,  1.  10,  where  Dillmaun's  reference  to 
Jerome  should  be  supplemented  by  the  more  interesting  passage  in  Epiph. 
De  Fond,  et  Mens.  §  62  [Syriac  text]).  The  Elohistic  variant  of  this  is  the 
conveyance  of  the  bones  of  Joseph  to  Canaan  at  the  Exodus  (Gen.  1.  25  ; 
Exod.  xiii.  19  ;  Josh.  xxiv.  32),  to  which  there  is  a  striking  Arabic  parallel 
in  Wetzstein,  Reisebericht  uher  Eauran  (Berlin,  1860),  p.  27  :  "  Take  my  bones 
and  carry  them  whithersoever  ye  journey,"  etc. 

1  Exod.  vii.  19,  20  a,  21  h,  22  ;  viii.  5-7,  15  h  [Heb.  1-3,  11  H] ;  16-19  [Heb. 
12-15] ;  ix.  8-12.  In  the  older  sources  the  plagues  are  :  blood  (in  the  Nile 
only ;  not  also,  as  in  P,  in  pools  and  vessels  ;  see  vii.  24) ;  frogs  ;  swarms 
of  insects  (under  a  different  name  from  the  mosquitoes  of  P) ;  murrain  ;  hail ; 
locusts  ;  darkness  ;  then  the  death  of  the  firstborn.  The  darkness  appears 
as  a  separate  plague  only  in  the  Elohist  (x.  21-23)  ;'and  the  Jahvistic  account, 
in  which  it  is  merely  an  incident  in  the  plague  of  locusts  (ver.  15),  seems  to 
give  a  more  primitive  form  of  the  tradition. 


LECT.    XIII 


IN    EXODUS  419 


disappears,  and  the  outstretched  hand  of  Moses  takes  its  place. 
The  share  of  the  priestly  narrator  in  Exod.  xvi.  is  disputed, 
and  between  this  chapter  and  the  ordinances  of  the  tabernacle 
we  have  nothing  but  a  bare  notice  of  the  arrival  at  Sinai 
(xix.  1,  2),  and  of  Moses's  ascent  to  the  mountain  of  the  law 
to  receive  the  ritual  ordinances  (xxiv.  15  sqq^). 

Except  in  one  or  two  hard  cases  (Exod.  xvi.,  and  perhaps 
Gen.  xxxiv.),  the  compass  of  the  priestly  document  in  the  early 
history  is  determined  by  such  a  concurrence  of  internal 
evidences  that  there  is  no  dispute  about  it  among  those  who 
admit  criticism  at  all.  And  when  we  look  at  the  priestly 
passages  as  a  whole  there  can  be  no  serious  doubt  as  to  their 
essential  unity  or  their  essential  character.  For  the  most 
part  the  group  is  so  homogeneous  that  the  main  mass 
of  it  must  have  come  from  a  single  pen ;  though  when 
we  carry  out  the  analysis  with  the  utmost  nicety  we 
find  signs  that  the  main  narrator  had  predecessors  and 
successors  in  the  priestly  school.  Thus  Kuenen,  whose 
sagacity  and  patience  in  this  kind  of  research  are  unrivalled, 
would  teach  us  to  speak  of  P  \  i.e.  the  oldest  priestly  col- 
lection of  laws  in  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi. ;  P  ^,  the  main  priestly 
narrator  and  legist ;  and,  finally,  a  series  of  later  priestly 
writers  (P  ^,  P  ^  etc.)  who  added  their  touches  to  the  narrative 
of  Korah's  rebellion  and  certain  other  passages,  in  which  an 
absolutely  homogeneous  story  is  not  left  even  when  all  non- 
priestly  elements  are  removed.  But  these  niceties  of  analysis 
do  not  affect  the  main  result ;  the  whole  priestly  literature 
belongs  to  one  school ;  and  that  school  builds  upon  Ezekiel 
(who  already  lies  behind  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.),  and  had  practically 
completed  its  work  at  the  date  of  Ezra's  Eeformation. 

The  general  character  of  the  main  priestly  document  has 
already  been  sketched  from  the  materials  presented  in  the 
middle  books,  and  our  analysis  of  Genesis  and  Joshua 
only  confirms  what  those  books  teach.      The  priestly  writing 


420  CHARACTER    OF    THE  lect.  xiii 

is  only  in  form  an  historical  document ;  in  substance  it  is  a 
body  of  laws  and  precedents  having  the  value  of  law,  strung 
on  a  thread  of  history  so  meagre  that  it  often  consists  of 
nothing  more  than  a  chronological  scheme  and  a  sequence  of 
bare  names.  If  we  read  the  document  as  literal  history,  all 
that  it  teaches  and  that  the  older  parts  of  the  Hexateuch  do 
not  teach  may  be  summed  up  in  one  comprehensive  sentence : 
The  ordinances  of  Judaisrn,  as  tue  knoio  them  from  the  time  of 
Ezra  downwards,  already  existed  and  were  enforced  in  the  days 
of  Moses.  That  this  is  not  historical  fact  can  be  proved,  and 
has  been  proved  in  the  previous  pages,  by  a  succession  of 
arguments.  The  supposed  Mosaic  ordinances,  and  the  nar- 
ratives that  go  with  them,  are  unknown  to  the  history  and 
the  prophets  before  Ezra ;  they  are  unknown  to  the 
Deuteronomic  writers,  and  they  are  unknown  to  the  non- 
priestly  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  Deuteronomy  pre- 
supposes. And  from  this  it  follows  with  certainty  that  the 
priestly  recasting  of  the  origins  of  Israel  is  not  history  (save 
in  so  far  as  it  merely  summarises  and  reproduces  the  old 
traditions  in  the  other  parts  of  the  Hexateuch)  but  Haggada, 
i.e.  that  it  uses  old  names  and  old  stories,  not  for  the  purpose 
of  conveying  historical  facts,  but  solely  for  purposes  of  legal 
and  ethical  instruction.  A  book  must  be  read  in  the  spirit 
wherein  it  was  written  if  the  reader  desires  to  profit;  and 
therefore  we  must  not  go  to  the  priestly  literature  for 
historical  information,  but  only  to  understand  the  nature 
of  the  institutions  which  were  devised  some  little  time  before 
Ezra's  Eeformation,  and  actually  put  in  force  at  that  Eeforma- 
tion,  as  the  necessary  and  efficient  means  of  preserving  the 
little  community  of  Judaism  from  being  swallowed  up  in  the 
surrounding  heathenism.  It  is  useless  to  argue  that  if  this 
be  so  the  Priests'  Code  has  no  right  to  stand  in  our  Bible  ;  for 
under  Providence  the  Code  of  Ezra  and  the  Eeformation  of 
Ezra  were  the  means,  amidst  the  general  dissolution  of  the 


LECT.  XIII  PRIESTLY    STORY  421 

Persian  and  Hellenic  East,  of  preserving  and  maturing  among 
the  Jews  those  elements  of  true  spiritual  religion  out  of 
which  Christianity  sprang.  In  the  nineteenth  century  of 
Christendom  it  is  too  late  to  make  an  Index  Expurgatorms  of 
the  books  on  which  our  Christian  religion  does,  as  a  matter  of 
history,  rest ;  but  it  is  not  too  late  to  seek  to  understand  them 
by  tlie  best  lights  that  God  in  His  providence  gives  us  to  use. 
I  know  of  no  attempt,  on  the  part  of  apologists  for 
tradition,  to  meet  directly  the  historical  arguments  that 
establish  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  modern  criticism,  the 
late  date  of  the  Priests'  Code.  The  position  always  taken  up 
by  traditionalists  is  that  there  are  sufficient  reasons  of  some 
other  kind  for  holding  all  the  Pentateuchal  laws  (with  the 
conjoined  histories)  to  be  Mosaic,  and  that  therefore  every- 
thing in  the  Bible  that  appears  to  be  inconsistent  with  that 
opinion  must  be  explained  away  at  any  cost.  But  explaining 
things  away  is  a  process  that  has  no  place  in  fair  historical 
inquiry,  though  unfortunately  it  has  long  played  a  great  part 
in  Biblical  interpretation.  The  reason  why  unnatural  inter- 
pretations, which  would  not  be  tolerated  in  any  other  field, 
are  accepted  without  difficulty  in  the  case  of  the  Bible  is  not 
far  to  seek.  Till  a  very  recent  date  it  was  assumed  on  all 
hands  that  the  authority  of  Scripture,  as  a  rule  of  faith  and 
life,  involves  the  inerrancy  of  all  parts  of  the  sacred  record. 
The  Bible  could  not  contradict  itself,  and  therefore,  if  two 
passages  appeared  to  be  at  variance,  one  of  them  must  be 
explained  away.  This  is  not  the  place  for  a  discussion  of 
theological  principles  ;  it  is  enough  to  observe  that  there  is  a 
very  long  step  between  the  doctrine  that  the  Bible  is  a  sure 
rule  of  faith  and  life,  and  the  inference  that  every  historical 
statement  of  a  Biblical  book  is  necessarily  free  from  error. 
To  make  such  an  inference  cogent,  one  must  adopt  a  definition 
of  faith  which  is  neither  that  of  the  Reformers  nor  of  the  Old 
Catholic  and  Mediaeval  Church   {supra,  Lecture  I.).     And 


422  CHARACTER    OF    THE  lect.  xiii 

when  we  turn  from  theological  assumptions  to  deal  with 
actual  facts,  we  find  clear  evidence,  as  has  been  shown  in 
more  than  one  part  of  these  Lectures,  that  the  Biblical  writers 
were  not  all  equally  well  informed  in  matters  of  history,  that 
their  statements  are  not  always  in  strict  accordance  with  one 
another,  and  that  we  can  no  more  dispense  with  the  task  of 
sifting  and  comparing  sources  in  the  study  of  Israel's  history 
than  in  any  other  branch  of  historical  research.  When  this 
is  admitted,  all  that  part  of  the  apologetical  argument  which 
consists  in  the  explaining  away  of  plain  texts  at  once  falls  to 
the  ground.  To  explain  away  the  concurrent  evidence  of  the 
older  histories  and  prophets  where  it  does  not  agree  with 
tradition  is  really  nothing  else  than  to  reject  that  evidence  ;  a 
proceeding  manifestly  inconsistent  with  every  rule  of  historical 
research. 

While  the  traditionalists  thus  fail  altogether  in  their 
attempt  to  meet  the  historical  arguments  of  the  critics,  their 
own  positive  argument  for  believing  that  all  the  Pentateuchal 
laws  date  from  Moses  is  admittedly  theological  rather  than 
historical.  They  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, or,  putting  the  argument  more  broadly,  urge  that  it  is 
incredible  that  God  in  His  providence  should  have  allowed 
His  Church  to  hold  and  teach  for  so  many  centuries  an 
opinion  concerning  the  origin  of  Israel's  sacred  institu- 
tions which  is  not  historically  correct.  I  do  not  propose 
to  go  into  these  arguments,  because  I  do  not  know  any  way 
of  deciding  whether  they  are  sound  or  not  except  by  bringing 
them  to  the  test  of  history.  God  has  given  us  intellects  to 
judge  of  historical  evidence,  and  He  has  preserved  to  us  in  the 
Bible  ample  materials  for  deciding  the  date  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal laws  and  narratives  by  strict  historical  methods. 
And  as  He  has  thus  put  it  in  our  power  to  learn  what  the 
actual  course  of  Providence  has  been,  I  decline  to  be  led  into 
an  a  ^priori  argument  as  to  what  it  ought  to  have  been. 


LECT.  XIII  PRIESTLY   WRITINGS  423 

With  all  this,  it  is  still  true  that  the  priestly  writings, 
or  rather  such  part  of  them  as  once  formed  an  independent 
work,  make  a  very  strange  book,  and  it  is  an  object  of 
legitimate  inquiry  how  such  a  book  ever  came  to  be  written. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  we  can  hope  to  answer  this  question 
fully  from  the  materials  that  remain  to  ns  ;  but  there  are 
some  things  to  be  said  on  the  subject  which  at  least  go  far  to 
diminish  the  sense  of  strangeness  that  the  critical  account  of 
the  book  awakens  in  the  modern  reader.  It  is  possible  to  give 
an  intelligible  account  both  of  the  motives  by  which  the 
author  was  guided  and  of  tlie  models  that  influenced  the  form 
of  his  work  ;  but  to  understand  this,  we  must  go  back  to  the 
other  and  older  elements  of  the  Hexateuch. 

We  have  seen  that,  for  the  Book  of  Genesis,  what  remains 
of  the  ancient  historical  traditions  of  the  Hebrews  consists  of 
two  parallel  streams,  which  received  literary  form  in  the  works 
of  the  Jahvist  and  Elohist  respectively.^  The  same  two  sources 
still  flow,  and  can  be  distinguished  witli  some  degree  of 
certainty,  in  the  early  chapters  of  Exodus ;  but  as  we  proceed 
through  the  middle  books  the  analysis  becomes  more  difficult, 
though  from  time  to  time  the  same  thing  is  told  twice 
over,  with  more  or  less  variation  in  expression  and  detail. 
These  "  doublets  "  are  sufficiently  numerous  and  characteristic 
to  satisfy  us  that  we  are  still  dependent,  throughout  the 
pre-Deuteronomic  narrative,  on  the  Jahvistic  and  Elohistic 
sources,  though  the  two  have  been  so  interwoven  by  an 
editorial  hand  that  in  many  places  it  is  now  impossible  to 
separate  them.  Even  in  Genesis  there  are  some  passages 
where  it  seems  hopeless  to  attempt  to  resolve  the  complex 
narrative  JE  into  its  primitive  elements  ;  and  the  patriarchal 
history,  from  its  very  nature,  and  especially  because  it  is 
largely  made   up   of  traditions   associated  with   the  many 

^  This  statement  is  at  least  broadly  true  ;  and  for  the  present  purpose  it 
is  not  necessary  to  consider  whether  some  fragments  of  genuine  tradition  have 
come  to  us  from  other  sources,  e.g.  Gen.  xiv. 


424  J  AH  VIST,    ELOHIST  lect.  xiii 

local  sanctuaries  of  ancient  Israel  (Hebron,  Beersheba, 
Shecliem,  Bethel,  etc.),  may  be  presumed  to  have  offered  a 
more  varied  series  of  traditions  than  the  wilderness  journeys ; 
so  that  the  editor  would  find  less  occasion  in  the  latter  case  to 
preserve  great  part  of  both  the  old  histories  intact.  And  to 
this  it  must  be  added  that  in  the  middle  books  the  criterion 
of  origin  derived  from  the  Divine  Names  generally  fails  us ; 
whether  it  be  that  the  Elohist  took  no  pains  to  avoid  the  use 
of  the  name  Jehovah,  after  he  had  recorded  the  revelation 
made  in  that  name  to  Moses  at  the  Bush  (Exod.  iii.);  or 
whether,  as  some  suppose,  the  original  prevalence  of  Elohim 
in  his  narrative  lias  disappeared  at  some  stage  of  the  sub- 
sequent redaction.  Be  this  as  it  may,  there  remain  sufficient 
indications  of  dual  authorship  to  satisfy  us  that  all  through 
the  Hexateuch  the  old  history  consists  of  a  twofold  thread, 
and  that  the  Deuteronomic  writers  are  not  exclusively 
dependent  either  on  the  Jahvist  alone  or  on  the  Elohist 
alone.  Now,  it  is  very  clear  that  the  Deuteronomic  retro- 
spects are  not  based  on  mere  oral  tradition  ;  their  verbal 
coincidences  with  the  non-priestly  parts  of  Exodus  and 
Numbers  are  unmistakable  ;  and  as  these  coincidences  are 
with  the  non-priestly  narrative  as  a  whole,  and  not  with  one 
element  in  it,  the  presumption  is  that  the  two  old  histories 
were  already  fused  into  a  single  narrative  before  the  close  of 
the  seventh  century  B.C.,  and  that  this  compound  story  was 
the  written  source  that  lay  before  the  Deuteronomic  authors.-^ 

^  The  argument  that  the  Jahvistic  and  Elohistic  books  did  not  lie  before 
the  Deiiteronomistic  writers  in  separate  form,  but  that  these  writers  (or  at 
least,  as  Kuenen  would  limit  the  contention  [OiiderzoeJc,  i.  §  13,  note  27],  the 
author  of  Deut.  i.-iv.  xxix.  sq.,  and  the  Deuteronomic  hand  in  Joshua)  had 
before  them  the  compound  book  JE  (consisting  of  jiarts  of  J  +  parts  of  E 
+  some  editorial  matter)  is  commonly  made  to  turn  on  Deuteronomic 
references  to  passages  which  the  critical  analysis  assigns  to  the  redactor  of 
JE.  But  a  simpler  and  more  generally  intelligible  argument  may  serve  to 
make  the  same  thing  very  probable.  For  the  parenetic  purpose  of  Deuteronomy 
there  was  no  need  to  use  two  histories,  and  work  their  statements  into  a  con- 
tinuous whole  ;    and  therefore,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the  Deuteronomic 


LECT.  XIII  AND    DEUTERONOMIST  425 

On  tliis  and  other  grounds  it  is  generally  recognised  that 
the  first  step  towards  the  formation  of  our  present  compound 
Pentateuch  was  the  fusion  of  the  Jahvistic  and  Elohistic 
documents  in  a  single  book  (JE).  The  next  step  was  a  ver}^ 
obvious  one.  AVe  have  already  seen  that  the  influence  of 
Deuteronomy  on  the  literary  labours  of  the  period  of  the 
Exile  is  exhibited  in  a  Deuteronomic  redaction  of  all  the 
historical  books  (supra,  p.  396).  The  process  by  which 
the  whole  history  of  Israel  down  to  the  Captivity  was 
worked  into  a  continuous  narrative  (for  as  such  we  now 
read  it),  interspersed  with  comments  and  other  additions, 
enforcing  the  lessons  of  the  history  in  the  Deuteronomic 
manner,  cannot  now  be  followed  in  detail ;  and  probably  the 
work  was  not  all  done  at  once  or  by  one  hand.  That  the 
Deuteronomistic  redaction  extended  to  the  history  of  JE  is 
manifest  in  the  case  of  Joshua,  and  with  this  redaction  must 
have  gone  the  union  of  JE  with  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy. 
Every  one  can  see  for  himself  that  the  first  chapter  of  Joshua 
as  we  now  read  it  is  meant  to  be  continuous  with  Deuteronomy. 
Thus  all  the  non-priestly  parts  of  the  Hexateuch  were  united 
into  one  book,  to  wliich  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  in  the 
Deuteronomistic  redaction,  formed  the  continuation. 

During  the  first  ninety  years  of  the  new  Jerusalem,  from 
Cyrus  to  Ezra,  the  Law  of  Moses  meant  the  law  as  embodied 
in  this  great  history,  and  especially  in  the  Book  of  Deuter- 
onomy, which  might  fairly  be  taken  as  the  whole  law,  since 
its  fuller  and  more  modern  precepts  covered  the  ground  of 
the  smaller  codes  in  Exod.  xxi.-xxiii.,  Exod.  xxxiv.  When 
Malachi  says,  "  Remember  the  Torah  of  Moses  my  servant, 
which  I  commanded  him  in  Iloreb  for  all  Israel,  even  statutes 
and  judgments  "  (Mai.  iv.  4),  it  is  the  Code  of  Deuteronomy 

retrospects  of  the  old  liistory  sometimes  give  a  compound  story,  the  inference 
that  tliey  read  it  in  compound  form  {i.e.  read  JE  not  J  and  E)  is  almost 
irresistible.  This  is  apparently  the  case  in  several  places,  c.rj.  in  the 
account  of  the  events  at  Sinai. 


426  MALACHI   AND    THE  lect.  xiii 

that  he  has  in  view.  For  his  words  are  made  up  of  the 
expressions  characteristic  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  Deuter- 
onomistic  redactor  of  Joshua ;  and  the  statement  that  the 
"statutes  and  judgments,"  i.e.  the  contents  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  Code  (Deut.  xii.  1,  xxvi.  16),  were  given  to  Moses  in 
Horeb  (though  they  were  not  published  till  forty  years  later), 
is  in  accordance  with  Deut  v.  31.^  Malachi,  therefore,  had  in 
his  hands  the  Deuteronomic  Code,  with  the  historical  intro- 
duction ;  and  apparently  he  read  this  book  as  part  of  the 
Deuteronomistic  edition  of  the  whole  pre-priestly  Hexateuch. 
But  his  Torah  of  Moses  did  not  yet  embrace  the  Priests' 
Code,  as  appears  not  only  from  Mai.  iv.  4,  but  from  the  other 
references  he  makes  to  the  laws  and  institutions  of  Israel. 
In  particular  he  still  views  the  covenant  of  priesthood  as 
given  to  Levi  generally  (Mai.  ii.  1-8 ;  comp.  Deut.  xxxiii.  8 
sqq.),  and  assigns  to  the  oral  Torah  of  the  priests  an  importance 
hardly  consistent  with  a  date  subsequent  to  Ezra's  Eeforma- 
tion  (ii.  6),  but  suitable  to  what  we  know  of  the  early 
practice  of  the  second  Temple  from  the  prophets  Haggai  and 
Zechariah  (Hag.  ii.  11 ;  Zech.  vii.  3).^ 

1  The  phrases  "Torah  of  Moses,"  "Moses  my  servant,"  are  proper  to  the 
Deuteronomic  redaction  of  Joshua  and  the  historical  books ;  the  former  is  found 
in  Josh.  viii.  31,  32,  xxiii.  6  ;  2  Kings  xiv.  6,  xxiii.  25,  and  never  again  before 
Malachi ;  the  latter  in  Num.  xii.  7  ;  Deut.  xxxiv.  5,  and  then  frequently  in 
the  Deuteronomistic  parts  of  Joshua.  "  Horeb  "  is  Elohistic  and  Deuterono- 
mistic ;  in  P  the  mountain  of  the  law  is  "Sinai."  "Statutes  and  judg- 
ments "  is  a  standing  Deuteronomic  phrase,  and  occurs  but  once  in  the  rest 
of  the  Pentateuch,  viz.  Lev.  xxvi.  46  (with  "Sinai,"  not  "Horeb"). 

2  Note  further  Mai.  i.  8  (Deut.  xv.  21)  ;  Mai.  i.  14  (where  it  is  assumed 
that  a  votive  sacrifice  ought  to  be  a  male,  against  Lev.  iii.  1,  6,  but  apparently 
in  accordance  with  old  Semitic  usage  ;  comp.  Religion  of  the  Semites,  p.  280) ; 
iii.  5  (based  on  the  Decalogue  and  on  Deut.  xviii.  10,  Deut.  xxiv.  17  sqq., 
and  following  the  expressions  of  these  passages,  not  those  of  the  equivalent 
priestly  laws,  Lev.  xix.  31,  33  sqq.,  xx.  6) ;  the  blessing  on  obedience,  iv.  10 
(which  follows  the  expressions  of  Deut.  xxviii.  12,  not  of  the  priestly  parallel. 
Lev.  xxvi.).  There  are  other  points  of  verbal  coincidence  with  the  pre- 
priestly  Torah,  e.g.  the  rare  word  s'gullah  (iii.  17  ;  comp.  Exod.  xix.  5  ;  Deut. 
vii.  6,  xiv.  2,  xxvi.  18  ;  nowhere  else  in  a  similar  application  save  Ps.  cxxxv. 
4).  Objections  to  this  view  of  INIalachi's  date  are  dealt  with  in  the  next 
footnote  but  one,  and  infra,  p.  446. 


LECT.  XIII  LAW   OF   DEUTERONOMY  427 

Malaclii  represents  his  contemporaries  as  weary  of  serving 
God  and  ready  to  fall  altogether  away  from  His  worship,  and 
this  coldness  he  rebukes  from  the  standpoint  of  the  pre- 
priestly  Hexateuch,  which  was  therefore  the  acknowledged 
fountain  of  sacred  instruction.  In  like  manner  Nehemiah's 
prayer  in  Neh.  i.  is  wholly  based  on  Deuteronomy;  and 
when  Ezra  first  came  up  to  Jerusalem  (458  B.C.)  and  began 
those  efforts  at  reformation  which  were  not  crowned  with 
success  till  they  were  backed,  fourteen  years  later,  by  the 
civil  authority  of  the  Tirshatha,  it  was  to  the  Deuteronomic 
law  that  he  appealed,-^  The  first  aim  that  Ezra  set  before 
himself  was  the  abolition  of  mixed  marriages,  and  this 
measure  he  recommended  on  the  ground  of  Deut.  vii.  1-3 
(Ezra  ix.  11  sfiq.)} 

Thus  during  the  first  ninety  years  after  the  return,  and 
the  first  seventy  of  the  second  Temple  (which  was  completed 
in  516  B.C.),  there  was  a  written  sacred  law  for  the  general 
use  of  the  community,  but  no  authoritative  written  code  for 
the  direction  of  priestly  ritual.  The  latter  was  still  left  to 
the  oral  tradition  and  oral  Torah  of  the  priests. 

For  the  priests  themselves  there  was  doubtless  a  certain 
convenience  in  this.  Oral  tradition  is  more  elastic  than  a 
written  code ;  and  the  conditions  of  the  second  Temple  were 

^  On  the  history  of  Ezra  see  especially  Kuenen  in  the  Versl.  en.  Meded. 
of  the  Amsterdam  Academy  (Afd.  Letterkunde,  1890,  p.  273  sqq.),  where  it 
is  shown  that  the  events  recorded  in  Ezra  ix.  x.  must  have  been  followed  by 
a  reaction  and  a  long  struggle  of  parties. 

2  See  also  Neh.  xiii.  1-3,  where  the  separation  of  the  Israelites  from  tlie 
mixed  multitude  {'ereh,  synon.  with  the  'ammi  hadreg  of  Ezra  x.  11)  is  based 
on  Deut.  xxiii.  3-5.  Neh.  xiii.  1-3  is  a  fragment  torn  from  its  original  con- 
text, as  appears  from  the  opening  words  of  verse  1,  and  I  strongly  suspect 
that  verses  1,  2  originally  belonged  to  the  same  context  with  Ezra  ix.  x.  They 
would  come  in  well  between  Ezra  x.  9,  10.  In  any  case  the  whole  movement 
for  separation  from  the  heathen  was  based  on  Deuteronomy,  and  began 
fourteen  years  before  the  publication  of  the  priestly  edition  of  the  Pentateuch, 
so  that  Malachi's  polemic  against  marriage  with  "  the  daughters  of  a  strange 
god,"  in  no  way  weakens  the  proof  that  his  Torah  did  not  include  the  Priests' 
Code.     He  may  have  written  after  458,  but  he  certainly  wrote  before  444. 


428  CODIFICATION   OF  lect.  xiii 

SO  different  from  those  of  the  first  that  a  considerable  re- 
modelling of  points  of  ritual  necessarily  took  place  after  the 
return.^  On  the  other  hand,  there  were  several  considerations 
that  made  a  codification  of  the  priestly  Torali  desirable. 
There  were  many  ritual  rules,  particularly  those  of  ceremonial 
purity,  which  could  be  observed  in  exile  as  readily  as  at 
Jerusalem.  It  is  probable  that  in  the  first  instance  such 
rules  had  reference  mainly  to  formal  acts  of  worship,  and 
defined  the  conditions  of  participation  in  sacrificial  meals 
and  similar  holy  actions.  They  were  therefore  part  of  the 
priestly  Torah;  and  the  priests  were  still  their  only  inter- 
preters. But  in  the  actual  praxis  of  the  exiles,  when  sacrifice 
was  impossible,  all  ceremonial  rules  that  could  be  detached 
from  the  altar  ritual  acquired  an  independent  importance. 
And  in  the  scattered  state  of  the  nation  it  was  impossible  to 
maintain  unity  in  this  branch  of  ceremonial  tradition  with- 
out reducing  it  to  writing.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  the 
first  written  collections  of  priestly  Torahs  would  address 
themselves  to  this  need ;  and  in  fact  the  earlier  chapters  of 
Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.  are  mainly  occupied  with  laws  equally 
applicable  in  Canaan  and  in  the  Dispersion,  which  may  once 
have  formed  several  small  independent  books,  as  the  titles 
and  subscriptions  of  chaps,  xviii.  and  xix.  appear  to 
indicate. 

A  codification  of  the  Temple  ritual  was  not  so  immedi- 
ately necessary.  Yet  this,  too,  must  in  process  of  time  have 
appeared  to  be  desirable  alike  from  a  practical  and  a  theo- 
retical point  of  view ;  from  the  former  because  the  written 
Torah  of  IMoses,  contained  in  Deuteronomy,  did  at  various 
points  touch  on  ritual  matters,  so  that  there  was  a  constant 
danger  of  conflict  between  the  oral  and  the  written  law ; 
from  the  latter  because  a  systematical  exposition  of  the 
whole  doctrine  of  Israel's  holiness  on  the  lines  first  sketched 

1  See  infra,  p.  443  sqq. 


LECT.  xiH  THE   PRIESTLY   TORAH  429 

by  Ezekiel  was  necessary  to  complete  the  theory  of  Israel's 

religion  in  its  post-exile  form. 

The  early  draft  of  a  law  of  holiness  which  is  preserved 

in  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.  has  probably  not  reached  us  entire,  and  to 

some  extent  its  original  form  is  obscured  by  later  additions.^ 

But  in  it  we  already  see  a  distinct  effort  to  systematise  the 

ceremonial  law  on  the  principle  of  Israel's  holiness ;  and  we 

can  also  see  that  in  seeking  a  literary  form  proper  to  this 

systematic  exposition  the  writer  was  largely  guided  by  the 

Book  of  Deuteronomy.     The  closing  exhortation  in  Lev.  xxvi. 

is  based  on  Deut.  xxviii.,  and  the  laws  are  set  forth  as  laws 

of  ]\Ioses,  or  even  (xxv.  1,  xxvi.  46)  as  laws  given  to  Moses 

on  Sinai.      In  considering  how  the  writer  felt  himself  at 

liberty  to  use  these  forms  we  must  remember,  ^rs^,  that  the 

priests  had  always  referred  their  traditional  Torah  to  Moses 

as  the  father  of  their  guild,  and  second,  that  the  principle  of 

an  implicit  Mosaic  law  had  long  before  received  its  expression 

in  the  parabolic  form  that  God  gave  to  Moses  at  Sinai,  laws 

that  were  meant  for  future  use  and  so  not  published  at  the 

time  (Deut.  iv.  14,  v.  31  with  vi.  1  :  the  same  thing,  perhaps, 

appeared  already  in  the  Elohist's  book,  Exod.  xxiv.  12).     The 

Hebrews  had  no  abstract  philosophical  forms  of  language  or  of 

thought,  and  when  they  had  to  express  conceptions  involving 

"the  ideal"  or  "the  implicit"  they  could   only  do   so  in 

figurative  speech.     Every  one  is  familiar  with  the  Jewish 

use  of  "heavenly"  in  the  sense  of  "ideal,"  as  we  find  it  in 

the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  the  ark,  for  example,  which  was 

only  an  idea  under  the  second  Temple,  was  represented  as 

still  existing  in  heaven  (comp.  Eev.  xi.  19).     In  matters  of  law 

"Sinaitic"  had  a  similar  figurative  sense.     To  express  the 

whole  priestly  ordinances  of  holiness  in  the  terms  of  this 

old  figure  involved  a  much  more  elaborate  machinery  than 

1  See  Driver,  p.  43  sqq.,  for  the  linguistic  and  other  marks  of  distinction 
between  earlier  and  later  hands  in  these  chapters,  and  for  traces  of  the  earlier 
hand  in  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch. 


430  CONCLUSION 


LECT.  XIII 


that  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the  task  was  not 
carried  out  all  at  once.  But  we  note  that  even  the  laws  of 
Lev.  xvii.  sq^g^.  already  make  use  of  the  Tabernacle  as  the 
Sinaitic  model  of  the  true  sanctuary. 

The  finished  Priestly  Code  takes  up  the  task  that  had 
been  left  incomplete  in  the  first  law  of  holiness,  and  carries 
it  out  with  a  systematic  completeness  that  cannot  but  compel 
our  admiration  if  we  place  ourselves  on  the  author's  standpoint. 
His  object  is  not  to  supersede  the  older  law  and  the  history 
that  was  read  with  it,  but  to  set  over  against  it  a  counterpart 
and  necessary  companion -piece.  He  chooses  a  canvas  as 
large  as  that  of  the  pre-priestly  Torah,  and  throws  the  ex- 
position of  the  system  of  Israel's  sacred  ordinances  into  the 
form  of  a  history  from  the  Creation  to  the  complete  settle- 
ment in  Canaan.  This  whole  history  his  plan  compels  him 
to  idealise  or  allegorise,  and  he  does  so  boldly.  But  we 
have  no  right  to  say  that  he  meant  his  idealisation  to  be 
read  in  a  literal  sense  and  to  supersede  the  old  law  and  the 
old  history.  So  long  as  the  two  expositions,  JE  -1-  D  on  the 
one  hand  (the  prophetical  and  Deuteronomic  Torah),  and  P 
on  the  other  (the  systematised  Priestly  Torah),  stood  separate 
and  side  by  side,  no  one  who  cared  for  the  distinction 
between  history  and  Haggada  could  possibly  have  been  at 
a  loss  as  to  the  true  nature  of  the  second  book.  But  it  seems 
probable  that  in  the  age  of  Ezra  no  one  did  care  much  for 
this  distinction  ;  for  presently  the  two  books  were  fused 
together  in  one;  a  step  which  had  much  to  recommend  it 
from  an  immediate  -practical  point  of  view,  inasmuch  as  it 
reduced  the  whole  law  to  a  single  code,  but  which  at  the 
same  time  made  all  true  historical  study  of  the  origins  of 
Israel's  history  and  religion  impossible  without  that  work 
of  criticism  which  only  these  latter  days  have  begun  to  realise 
as  possible  and  necessary. 


ADDITIONAL  NOTES 


Additional  Note  A  (p.  122). — The  Text  of  1  Sam.  xvii. 

The  view  that  the  Greek  text  of  1  Sam.  xvii.  1-xviii.  5  is  to 
be  jDreferred  to  tlie  Hebrew  is  by  no  means  universally  accepted. 
AVellhausen,  who  argued  in  favour  of  the  Greek  text  in  his  Text 
der  BiXcher  Samuelis  (1871),  is  now  of  opinion  that  even  the  shorter 
text  of  chap.  xvii.  is  inconsistent  with  chap.  xvi.  14-23,  and  there- 
fore deems  it  probable  that  the  omissions  of  the  Septuagint  are  due 
to  an  attempt  to  remove  difficulties  which  has  not  quite  attained  its 
end.  (See  his  remarks  in  the  4th  ed.  of  Bleek's  Einleitung,  reprinted 
in  Comp.  des  Hexateuchs,  etc.,  1889,  p.  249  sq.).  Kuenen,  Onder- 
zoek  (2d  ed.,  1887),  i.  391  s^'.,  accepts  this  argument,  and  fortifies  it 
by  the  observation  that  the  covenant  between  David  and  Jonathan 
(xviii.  3)  is  alluded  to  in  1  Sam.  xx.  8.  Budde,  Bucher  Eichter 
und  Samuel  (Giessen,  1890),  takes  a  like  view,  and  also  argues 
(quite  consistently  as  it  appears  to  me)  that  if  xvii.  25  is  not  to  be 
rejected,  the  omissions  of  the  LXX.  with  regard  to  David  and  Merab 
must  also  be  condemned,  although  in  the  latter  case  the  superiority 
of  the  Greek  text  has  approved  itself  to  almost  all  critics. 

The  main  point  with  all  these  critics  is  that  in  xvi.  18  David 
is  already  described  to  Saul  as  a  valiant  man  and  a  man  of  war, 
whereas  in  chap,  xvii.,  in  the  short  text  as  well  as  in  the  long,  he  is 
a  mere  lad  unused  to  other  arms  than  the  shepherd's  staff  and  sling. 
This  argument  is  striking,  but  I  cannot  accept  it  as  conclusive.  If 
we  take  xvi.  14-23  as  a  whole,  and  do  not  confine  our  attention  to 
the  expressions  in  verse  18  (where,  in  putting  words  into  the  mouth 
of  one  of  Saul's  servants,  the  author  may  have  allowed  himself 
some  proleptic  freedom  of  description),  we  must  necessarily  con- 
clude that  David  came  to  Saul's  court  as  a  mere  stripling.  An 
armour-bearer  was  not  a  full  warrior,  but  a  sort  of  page  or  apprentice 
in   arms   (comp.  Ibn    Hisham,  p.   119,  1.  1),  whose  most  warlike 


432  DAVID    AND  NOTE  A 

function  is  to  kill  outright  those  whom  his  master  has  struck  down 
(1  Sam.  xiv.  13;  2  Sam.  xviii.  15) — an  office  which  among  the 
Arabs  was  often  performed  by  women.  Further,  the  way  in  which 
David's  movements  are  represented  as  entirely  dependent  on  his 
father's  consent  is  hardly  consistent  Avith  the  idea  that  he  was 
already  a  full-grown  warrior.  On  the  contrary,  he  is  still  a  lad 
tending  sheep  (ver.  19),  which  was  not  a  grown  man's  occupation. 
To  delete  the  words  |SV3  "iC'X  is  perfectly  arbitrary,  unless  we 
are  prepared  to  go  much  farther  and  regard  the  whole  passage  as 
composite.  Now  it  is  quite  reasonable  that  a  stripling  and  apprentice 
at  arms  should  prefer  to  meet  Goliath  with  the  boyish  weapon  of 
which  he  knew  himself  to  be  a  master.  This  indeed  will  not 
account  for  the  shepherd's  bag  in  xvii.  40,  but  that,  as  Wellhausen 
has  seen,  is  a  mere  gloss  on  D1pP''3,  and  no  proper  part  of  the  text. 

That  the  story  of  xvii.  12-31  is  self-contained,  and  not  only 
independent  of  verses  1-11,  but  built  on  different  lines,  has  been 
shown  in  the  text  of  the  Lecture.  I  should  here  say  expressly,  what 
I  have  there  only  hinted,  that  verses  15,  16  are  no  proper  part 
of  the  narrative  but  a  harmonistic  interpolation.  And  further,  the 
words  of  the  Philistine  have  been  omitted  in  verse  23,  and  a 
reference  back  to  verse  8  substituted  for  them.  Let  me  also  direct 
attention  to  the  awkwardness  of  the  junctions  between  verses  11  and 
12,  verses  31  and  32.  As  regards  the  latter,  it  requires  some  courage 
to  translate  innp^l,  "  and  he  sent  for  him  "  [=  innp^l  rhli^^),  Gen.  xx. 
2;  1  Sam.  xvi.  11].  Apparently  the  word  should  be  read  as  a 
plural,  "  and  they  took  him,"  which  requires  some  addition  to  make 
complete  sense  (comp,  Lucian,  koI  7rapeXa/3ov  avTov  kol  da-qyayov 
TTpos  2aovA).  In  any  case  we  expect  the  unknown  lad  to  answer 
a  question  of  the  king's,  not  to  speak  first ;  so  that  here  we  have  an 
external  mark  of  discontinuity  in  the  narrative.  Again,  verse  12 
begins  awkwardly,  but  is  obviously  a  new  beginning,  breaking  off 
from  verse  1 1  altogether.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  later  Greek 
version  of  ver.  12  sqq.,  as  we  have  it  in  the  Cod.  Al.,  begins  kuI 
eh-ev  Aavel8.  These  are  the  first  words  of  verse  32,  and  seem  to 
mark  that  what  follows  was  originally  a  gloss  on  that  verse.  I 
conjecture  that  the  source  from  which  the  gloss  was  taken  began 
(like  1  Sam.  i.  1,  ix.  1),  "And  there  was  a  man,  an  Ephrathite 
of  Bethlehem  Judah,  whose  name  was  Jesse." 

If  now  we  accept  xii.  12-31  as  an  independent  fragment,  break- 
ing off  abruptly  with  the  words,  "  and  they  took  him,"  it  is  to  be 
asked  how  the  story  went  on.     The  fight  itself  must  have  been  told 


NOTEB  GOLIATH  433 

nearly  as  in  the  other  version,  and  therefore  nothing  is  preserved  of 
it  but  the  fragments  xvii.  41,  50.  But  even  these  show  a  differ- 
ence. For  in  verse  51  (where  the  words  "  and  drew  it  out  of  the 
sheath  thereof  "  are  absent  from  the  LXX.)  the  sword  which  David 
takes  to  kill  the  giant  outright  is  his  own  sword  (comp.  verse  39), 
the  weapon  proper  to  armour-bearers,  and  used  by  them  for  de- 
spatching the  wounded.  (See  the  passages  already  quoted,  and  also 
Judg.  ix.  54 ;  1  Sam.  xxxi.  4.)  But  in  verse  50  David  has  no 
sword,  and  the  blow  with  the  sling-stone  is  itself  fatal.  Again,  I 
think  it  is  plain  that  in  the  story  of  verses  12-31,  etc.,  Saul  had  no 
interview  with  David,  though  (unless  verse  31  has  been  retouched) 
he  must  have  given  permission  to  him  to  try  his  fortune.  For  at 
verse  55  Saul  sees  David  for  the  first  time  as  he  goes  forth  ao;ainst 
the  Philistine,  and  does  not  even  know  his  name.^  Thus  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  narrative  is  fully  maintained  to  the  close  of  chap, 
xvii.,  and  this  carries  xviii.  1-2  with  it.  As  regards  xviii.  3-5  the 
case  is  not  so  clear,  both  on  account  of  the  point  raised  by  Kuenen, 
and  because  verse  3,  if  it  belongs  to  the  same  source  as  verse  1, 
ought  not  to  have  been  separated  from  it  by  verse  2. 

A  word  in  conclusion  on  the  bearing  of  this  analysis  on  the 
larger  questions  of  criticism  in  the  Book  of  Samuel.  All  that  I 
suppose  myself  to  have  proved  is  that  in  chap.  xvii.  we  must  start 
from  the  text  of  LXX.,  and  that  this  text  is  the  continuation  of  the 
present  form  of  xvi.  14-23.  That  the  latter  verses  are  themselves 
of  composite  structure,  and  contain  (especially  in  ver.  18)  traces  of 
an  older  narrative,  which  made  David  first  come  to  Saul  as  a  full- 
grown  warrior,  is  not  inconceivable,  especially  in  view  of  2  Sam. 
xxi.  19.  But  such  a  theory  must  not  be  based  on  the  longer  text 
of  1  Sam.  xvii.,  and  for  my  own  part  I  do  not  see  that  there  are  in 
xvi.  14  sqq.  plain  enough  marks  of  dual  origin  to  justify  it. 

Additional  Note  B  (p.  124). — Hebrew  Fragments  preserved 

IN    THE   SePTTJAGINT 

The  insertion  of  the  Septuagint  in  1   Kings  viii.  53  deserves 

^  I  think  also  (though  here  I  speak  with  diflideiice)  that  there  is  a  difference 
between  verse  7  and  verse  41.  For  if  we  translate  the  latter  verse  in  accordance  with 
the  invariable  idiomatic  use  of  ll^'^J^n"!  (as  a  stronger  equivalent  of  S"ini,  especially 
in  resumption,  after  another  person  has  been  named  or  referred  to  by  a  pronoun), 
the  sense  is,  "  and  the  man  {i.e.  the  Philistine)  bore  his  shield  in  front  of  him  (as 
he  advanced),"  so  that  only  his  forehead  was  vulnerable.  This,  I  admit,  raises  the 
question  whether  verse  7  has  not  been  retouched,  after  the  interpolation,  by  some 
one  who  misunderstood  verse  41.  But  have  we  any  copy  of  LXX.  so  free  from 
Hexaplar  additions  as  to  make  this  incredible  without  confirmation  from  the  Greek  ? 

28 


434  BOOK    OF    JASHAR 


special  notice  for  its  intrinsic  interest.  In  1  Kings  viii.  12,  13,  the 
Hebrew  text  reads,  "  Jehovah  hath  determined  (said)  to  dwell  in 
darkness.  I  have  built  a  house  of  habitation  for  thee,  a  place  for 
thee  to  dwell  in  eternally."  These  verses  are  omitted  in  LXX.,  but 
at  verse  53  we  find  instead  a  fuller  form  of  the  same  words  of  Solo- 
mon. In  the  common  editions  of  the  LXX.  the  words  run  thus  : — 
"  The  sun  he  made  known  in  heaven  :  the  Lord  hath  said  that  he 
will  dwell  in  darkness.  Build  my  house,  a  comely  house  for  thyself 
to  dwell  in  newness.  Behold,  is  it  not  written  in  the  book  of  song  1 " 
The  variations  from  the  Hebrew  text  are  partly  mistakes.  The 
word  "  comely  "  is  a  rendering  elsewhere  used  in  the  LXX.  for  the 
Hebrew  word  naweh,  which  in  this  connection  must  rather  be 
rendered  "  house  of  habitation,"  giving  the  same  sense  as  the 
Hebrew  of  verse  13,  with  a  variation  in  the  expression.  Then  the 
phrase  "  in  newness  "  at  once  exhibits  itself  to  the  Hebrew  scholar 
as  a  mistaken  reading  of  the  Hebrew  word  "  eternally."  Again, 
"  build  my  house  "  differs  in  the  Hebrew  from  "  I  have  built  "  only 
by  the  omission  of  a  single  letter.  We  may  correct  the  LXX. 
accordingly,  getting  exactly  the  sense  of  the  Massoretic  text  of  verse 
1 2 ;  or  conversely,  we  may  correct  the  Hebrew  by  the  aid  of  the 
Septuagint,  in  which  case  one  other  letter  must  be  changed,  so  that 
the  verse  runs,  "  Build  my  house,  an  house  of  habitation  for  me ;  a 
place  to  dwell  eternally."  We  now  come  to  the  additions  of  the 
LXX.  "  The  sun  he  made  known  in  heaven  "  gives  no  good  sense. 
But  many  MSS.  read,  "  The  sun  he  set  in  heaven."  These  two 
readings,  eyvwpicrev  and  ecrrrjcrev,  have  no  resemblance  in  Greek. 
But  the  corresponding  Hebrew  words  are  |"'nn  and  p^n  respectively, 
which  are  so  like  that  they  could  easily  be  mistaken.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  latter  is  right ;  and  the  error  in  the  common 
Septuagint  text  shows  that  the  addition  really  was  found  by  the 
translators  in  Hebrew,  not  inserted  out  of  their  own  head.  We  can 
now  restore  the  whole  original,  divide  it  into  lines  as  poetry,  and 

render — 

"  Jehovah  set  the  sun  in  the  heavens, 
But  He  hath  determined  to  dwell  in  darkness. 
Build  my  house,  an  house  of  habitation  for  me, 
A  place  to  dwell  in  eternally." 

Or  on  the  other  reading — 

*'  I  have  built  an  house  of  habitation  for  thee, 
A  place  to  dwell  in  eternally." 

The  character  of  the  expression  in  these  lines,  taken  with  the  cir- 


NOTEO  APHEK  435 

cumstance  of  their  transposition  to  another  place  in  the  LXX.,  would 
of  itself  prove  that  this  is  a  fragment  from  an  ancient  source,  not 
part  of  the  context  of  the  narrative  of  the  chapter.  Ikit  the  LXX. 
expressly  says  that  the  words  are  taken  from  "  The  Book  of  Song." 
There  might  perhaps  be  an  ancient  book  of  that  name,  as  we  have 
in  Arabic  the  great  historical  and  poetical  collection  of  El  Isfahany, 
called  "The  Book  of  Songs."  But  the  transposition  of  a  single 
letter  in  the  Hebrew  converts  the  unknown  Book  of  Song  into  the 
well-known  Book  of  Jashar.  This  correction  seems  certain.  The 
slip  of  the  Septuagint  translator  was  not  unnatural;  indeed,  the 
same  change  is  made  by  the  Syriac  in  Josh.  x.  13. 

Another  example  of  an  ancient  and  valuable  notice  preserved  in 
the  Greek  but  not  in  the  Hebrew  is  found  in  2  Kings  xiii.  22, 
where  (in  Lucian's  recension)  we  read,  "And  Hazael  took  the 
Philistine  out  of  his  hand  from  the  Western  Sea  unto  Aphek." 
This  note,  as  Wellliausen  has  brought  out,  enables  us  to  assign  the 
true  position  of  Aphek,  on  the  northern  border  of  the  Philistines,  and 
throws  light  on  the  whole  history  of  the  invasions  of  Central  Israel 
by  the  Philistines  and  by  the  Syrians,  for  which  Aphek  habitually 
served  as  base.  The  Syrians,  we  see,  did  not  attack  Samaria  in 
front,  from  the  north,  but  made  a  lodgment  in  the  northern  part 
of  the  Philistine  plain,  to  which  there  was  an  easy  road  by  way  of 
Megiddo,  and  thus  took  their  enemy  on  the  flank.  See  Wellhausen, 
Co77i2)ositio)i,  jD.  254.  The  text  of  Lucian's  recension  of  LXX.  for 
Genesis  to  Esther  has  been  determined  and  published  by  Lagarde 
(Gottingen,  1883).  For  the  historical  books  this  recension  is  very 
important. 

Additional  Note  C  (p.  197). — Sources  of  Psalm  lxxxvl 

1.  Incline,  0  Lord,  thine  ear,  1.  a.  Usual  invocation  ;  Isa.  xxxvii.  17  ; 
answer  me :  for  I  am  poor  and  Ps.  xvii.  6,  etc. 

needy.  b.   Ps.  xl.  17. — "lam  poor  and  needy;" 

Ps.  XXV.  16. 

2.  Preserve  my  soul  for  I  am  2.  Ps.  xxv.  20. — "Preserve  my  soul  and 
holy  :  0  thou,  my  God,  save  thy  deliver  me  :  let  me  not  be  ashamed,  for  I 
servant  that  trusteth  in  thee.       take  refuge  with  thee." 

3.  Be  gracious  to  me,  0  Lord:  3.  Current  phrases;  e.g.  Ps.  xxx.  8. — 
for  unto  thee  I  cry  continually.    "To  thee,  0  Jehovah,  I  cry  ;"  verse  10.— 

"  Hear,  0  Jehovah,  and  be  gracious  to  me." 

4.  Make  glad  the  soul  of  thy  4.  a.  Ps.  xc.  15. — "Make  us  glad;' 
servant:  for  to  thee,  0  Lord,  do  li.  8.— "Make  me  hear  joy  and  gladness/' 
I  lift  up  my  soul.  etc. 

b.  Ps.  xxv.  1.— "Unto  thee,  Jehovah,  I 
lift  up  my  soul." 


436  PSALM    LXXXVI 


5.  For  thou,  Lord,  art  good  5.  Modification  of  Exod.  xxxiv.  6,  7. — 
and  forgiving :  and  abundant  in  "Abundant  in  mercy  .  .  .  forgiving  ini- 
mercy  unto  all  that  call  upon  quity." 

thee. 

6.  Give  ear,  0  Lord,  unto  my  6.  Ps.  v.  1,  2. — "  Give  ear  to  my  words, 
prayer  :  and  hearken  to  the  Jehovah  .  .  .  hearken  to  the  voice  of  my 
voice  of  my  supplications.  cry." 

7.  In  the  daj'  of  my  distress  7.  Ps.  cxx.  1. — "  I  called  to  Jehovah  in  my 
I  call  on  thee  :  for  thou  wilt  distress,  and  he  answered  me  ;  Ixxvii.  2. — 
answer  me.  "  In  the  day  of  my  distress  I  sought  the  Lord." 

8.  There  is  none  like  thee  8.  Ex.  xv.  11.  — "  AVho  is  like  thee  among 
among  the  gods,  0  Lord  :  and  the  gods,  0  Jehovah  ? "  Deut.  iii.  24. — 
there  is  nought  like  thy  Avorks.    "  Who  is  a  God  that  can  do  like  thy  works  ? " 

9.  All  nations  whom  thou  9.  Ps.  xxii.  27. — "All  ends  of  the  earth 
hast  made  shall  come  and  wor-  shall  .  .  .  return  unto  Jehovah,  and  before 
ship  before  thee,  0  Lord  :  and  thee  shall  all  families  of  the  nations  wor- 
shall  glorify  thy  name.  ship." 

10.  For  thou  art  great  and       10.  Ex.  xv.  11. — "Doing  wonders." 
doest  wonders  :   thou,  0  God, 

alone. 

11.  Teach  me  thy  way,  0  11.  a.  Ps.  xxvii.  11.  —  "Teach  me  thy 
Jehovah  ;  let  me  walk  in  thy  way,  O  Jehovah;"  xxv.  5.  —  "Guide  me  in 
truth:   unite  my  heart  to  fear  thy  truth." 

thy  name.  &.  Jer.  xxxii.  39.  —  "I  will  give  them  one 

heart,  and  one  way  to  fear  me  continually." 
12.  I   will    praise   thee,    0       12.  Ps.  ix.  1. — "  I  will  praise  thee,  Jeho- 
Lord   my   God,    with    all    my  vah,  with  all  my  heart,"  etc. 
heart :    and  I  will  glorify  thy 
name  for  ever. 

13.  For  great  is  thy  mercy  13.  a.  Ps.  Ivii.  10. — "For  thy  mercy  is 
towards    me:    and   thou   hast  great  unto  the  heavens. " 

delivered   my   soul   from   deep       h.  Ps.  Ivi.  13. — "  For  thou  hast  delivered 
Sheol  (the  place  of  the  dead).      my  soul  from  death," 

14.  0  God,  proud  men  are  14.  Ps.  liv.  3. — "For  strangers  are  risen 
risen  against  me,  and  an  as-  against  me,  and  tyrants  seek  my  life  who 
sembly  of  tyrants  seek  my  life  :  have  not  set  God  before  them."  [In  Hebrew, 
and  have  not  set  thee  before  "proud  men"  ZeDIM  and  "strangers" 
them.  ZaRIM,  differ  by  a  single  letter,  and  D  and 

R  in  the  old  character  are  often  not  to  be 
distinguished.] 

15.  But  thou,  Lord,  art  a  15.  Quotation  from  Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  word  for 
God    merciful     and     gracious,  word. 

long-sufifering,    and    plenteous 
in  mercy  and  truth. 

16.  Turn  unto  me  and  be  16.  a.  Ps.  xxv.  16. — "  Turn  unto  me,  and 
gracious     to     me:     give     thy  be  gracious  to  me." 

strength  unto  thy  servant,  and       h.  God  the  strength   (protection)   of  his 
save  the  son  of  thy  handmaid,     people,   as   Ps.    xxviii.   8,    and   often  ;    Ps. 

cxvi.  16. — "I  am  thy  servant,  the  son  of 

thy  handmaid." 


MACCABEE   PSALMS  437 


17.  Work  with  me  a  token       17.  Ps.   xl.  3.  —  "Many  shall  see  it  and 

(miracle)  for  good:   that  they  fear;"  Ps.  vi.  10. — "Let  all  mine  enemies 

which  hate  me  may  see  it  and  be  ashamed  and  sore  vexed,"  etc.  etc. 
be  ashamed  :   because   thou,   0 
Lord,  hast  holpen  me  and  com- 
forted me. 

Additional  Note  D  (p.  208). — Maccabee  Psalms  in  Books  I.-III. 
OF  THE  Psalter 

In  discussing  the  question  of  Maccabee  Psalms  in  the  first  part 
of  the  Psalter  most  recent  critics  ignore  the  difficulties  that  arise  from 
the  history  of  the  redaction  ;  so,  for  example,  Cornill,  the  author  of  the 
latest  German  Einleitung  (Freiburg,  1891),  and  Prof.  Driver,  from 
whom  I  had  hoped  for  some  help  in  revising  the  conclusions  set 
forth  by  me  five  years  ago  in  the  Enc.  Brit.  (art.  Psalms).  Even 
Prof.  Cheyne,  in  his  Origin  of  the  Psalter  (1891),  does  not  seem  to 
me  to  give  quite  enough  weight  to  the  only  sound  principle  for  the 
historical  study  of  the  Psalter,  viz.  that  the  discussion  of  the  age  of 
individual  psalms  must  be  preceded  by  an  inquiry  into  the  date  of 
the  several  collections.  My  friend  Cheyne,  however,  recognises  that 
the  Elohistic  Psalter  was  completed,  and  the  designation  "  sons  of 
Korah  "  obsolete,  before  the  Maccabee  period,  and  he  accounts  for 
the  presence  of  a  certain  number  of  Maccabee  Psalms  in  Books  I.-III. 
by  supposing  that  they  were  inserted  in  the  older  collections  by  the 
Maccabean  editor.  This  is  not  impossible  in  the  abstract,  but  to 
make  Pss.  xliv.  Ixxiv.  Ixxix.  Maccabee  hymns  it  is  further  necessary 
to  suppose  that  the  editor  "threw  himself  into  the  sj^irit  of  the 
original  collector "  of  the  Elohistic  Psalm  -  book,  "  and  made  his 
additions  Elohistic  to  correspond  to  the  earlier  psalms"  (Cheyne, 
p.  100).  And  we  must  also  suppose  that  he  furnished  his  additions 
with  titles  which  (at  least  in  the  case  of  xliv.)  had  no  longer  any 
meaning.  This  is  a  complicated  hypothesis  and  not  to  be  accejDted 
without  further  examination.  If  the  last  editor  incorporated  con- 
temporary hymns  in  the  old  parts  of  the  Psalter  instead  of  j^lacing 
them  in  the  new  collection  at  the  end  of  the  book,  his  motive  must 
have  been  liturgical,  i.e.  he  must  have  designed  them  to  be  sung  in 
sequence  with  other  pieces.  That  insertions  of  this  kind  were 
actually  made  in  the  older  collections  is  highly  probable  from  the 
presence  of  four  anonymous  psalms  in  the  Davidic  collections,  for 
here  anonymity  is  in  itself  a  mark  of  later  addition.  Moreover, 
Pss.  xxxiii.  Ixvi.  Ixvii.  have  an  obviously  liturgical  character ;  Ps. 
xxxiii.  is  linked  to  the  previous  psalm  by  the  way  in  which  its  first 


438  MACCABEE    PSALMS    IN  noted 

verse  takes  up  xxxii.  11,  and  Pss.  Ixvi.  Ixvii.  form  an  admirable 
sequence  to  Ixv.  if  we  take  the  whole  group  as  songs  for  the  pre- 
sentation of  first  fruits  at  the  passover.  Ps.  xxxiii.  may  have  been 
added  by  the  final  collector ;  but  in  Ixvi.  Ixvii.  there  is  nothing  to 
imply  so  late  a  date  or  to  lead  us  to  doubt  that  these  Elohistic 
pieces  were  set  in  their  place  by  the  Elohistic  collector.  They  do 
not  therefore  diminish  the  improbability  of  Maccabee  additions  in 
Elohistic  form  and  furnished  with  titles  of  obsolete  type.  The 
Elohistic  Psalms  which  Prof.  Cheyne  assigns  to  the  Maccabee  period 
are  xliv.  Ix.  Ixi.  Ixiii.  Ixxiv.  Ixxix.  Ixxxiii.  In  the  case  of  Ps.  Ix., 
verses  5-12  (Heb.  7-14)  are  repeated  in  Ps.  cviii.  (retaining  their 
Elohistic  peculiarity)  which  is  hardly  conceivable  if  the  former 
psalm  is  of  Maccabee  date.  Pss.  Ixi.  and  Ixiii.  are  assigned 
to  the  Hasmonean  period  because  they  speak  of  a  human  king 
(not  prophetically)  and  yet  are  manifestly  post- exilic.  But  I 
think  that  a  careful  observation  of  these  psalms  leads  to  the  con- 
clusion that  in  both  of  them  the  closing  reference  to  the  king  comes 
in  somewhat  unnaturally,  and  that  the  better  hypothesis  is  that  Ixi. 
6-8  (Heb.  7-9),  and  at  least  the  last  verse  of  Ixiii.,  are  liturgical 
additions.  Thus  the  strength  of  the  case  for  Maccabee  Psalms  in 
the  Elohistic  Psalter  lies  in  xliv.  Ixxiv.  Ixxix.  and  Ixxxiii.,  especially 
in  the  first  three.  (Psalm  Ixxx.,  which  is  frequently  associated  with 
these,  Prof.  Cheyne  prefers  to  assign  to  the  Persian  period).  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  objection  to  placing  these  psalms  in  the  reign 
of  Ochus  comes  mainly  from  laying  too  much  weight  on  what  Jose- 
phus  relates  about  Bagoses  (Ant.  xi.  7.  1).  That  Bagoses  forced 
his  way  into  the  Temple,  and  that  he  laid  a  tax  on  the  daily  sacri- 
fices, is  certainly  not  enough  to  justify  the  language  of  the  Psalms. 
But  for  this  whole  period  Josephus  is  very  ill  informed ;  he  is  quite 
silent  about  the  revolt  and  the  Hyrcanian  captivity,  and  the  whole 
Bagoses  story  looks  like  a  pragmatical  invention  designed  partly  to 
soften  the  catastrophe  of  the  Jews  and  partly  to  explain  it  by  the 
sin  of  the  High  Priest.  The  important  fact  of  the  captivity  to 
Hyrcania  stands  on  quite  independent  evidence  (Euseb.  Chron., 
Anno  1658  Ahr.)^  but  comes  to  us  without  any  details.  The 
captivity  implies  a  revolt,  and  the  long  account  given  by  Diodorus 
(xvi.  40  sqq.)  of  Ochus's  doings  in  Phoenicia  and  Egypt  shows  how 
that  ruthless  king  treated  rebels.  In  Egypt  the  temples  w^ere 
pillaged  and  the  sacred  books  carried  away  {ibid.  c.  51).  Why 
should  we  suppose  that  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem  and  the  synagogues 
fared  better  1     Such  sacrilege  was  the  rule  in  Persian  warfare ;  it 


i 


NOTED  THE    ELOHISTIC    PSALTER  439 

was  practised  by  Xerxes  in  Greece  and  also  at  Babylon  (Herod,  i. 
183;  comp.  Noldeke  in  Enc.  Brit,  xviii.  572).  I  have  observed  in 
the  text  that  a  rising  of  the  Jews  at  this  period  could  not  fail  to  take 
a  theocratic  character,  and  that  the  war  would  necessarily  ap})ear  as 
a  religious  war.  Certainly  the  later  Jews  looked  on  the  Persians  as 
persecutors;  the  citation  from  Pseudo-Hecataeus  in  Jos.  c.  Ap.  i. 
22,  though  worthless  as  history,  is  good  evidence  for  this ;  and  it  is 
also  probable  that  the  Avars  under  Oclius  form  the  historical  back- 
ground of  the  Book  of  Judith,  and  that  the  name  Holophernes  is 
taken  from  that  of  a  general  of  Ochus  (Diod.  xxxi.  19)  who  took  a 
prominent  part  in  the  Egyptian  campaign  (Gutschmid,  Noldeke). 

In  Psalm  Ixxxiii.  Judali  appears  as  threatened  by  the  neigh- 
bouring peoples,  who  are  supported  (but  apparently  not  led)  by 
Asshur  (the  satrap  of  Syria  f).  This  situation  is  much  more  easily 
understood  under  the  loose  rule  of  the  Persians  than  under  the 
Greeks,  and  the  association  of  Tyre  with  Philistia  (which  appears 
also  in  Ixxxvii.  4)  agrees  with  the  notice  of  Pseudo-Scylax  (written 
under  Artaxerxes  Ochus),  which  makes  Ascalon  a  Tyrian  possession. 
If  this  psalm  has  a  definite  historical  background,  which  many 
interpreters  doubt,  it  must  be  later  than  the  destruction  of  Sidon 
by  Ochus,  which  restored  to  Tyre  its  old  pre-eminence  in  Phoenicia. 
That  it  is  not  of  the  Assyrian  age  is  obvious  from  the  mention  of 
Arab  tribes. 

Prof.  Cheyne  thinks  that  there  are  also  in  the  Elohistic  Psalm- 
book  a  few  pieces  of  the  pre-Maccabean  Greek  period,  viz.  xlii.  and 
xliii.  xlv.  Ixviii.  Ixxii.  and  perhaps  Ixxiii.  To  me  the  situation  as- 
signed (after  Hitzig)  to  xlii.  and  xliii.  seems  entirely  fanciful,  and 
that  xlv.  and  Ixxii.  speak  of  foreign  monarchs  is  very  hard  to 
believe.  I  am  not  sure  that  the  ideal  picture  of  Psalm  Ixxii.  re- 
quires any  historical  background  :  "Entrust  thy  judgments  to  a  king 
and  thy  righteousness  to  a  king's  son  "  may  very  well  be  a  prayer 
for  the  re-establishment  of  the  Davidic  dynasty  under  a  Messianic 
king  according  to  prophecy.  Psalm  xlv.  is  a  great  crux,  but  I  still 
think  that  it  is  easiest  to  take  it  as  a  poem  of  the  old  kingdom.  As 
regards  Ixviii.,  the  arguments  in  favour  of  a  Greek  date  during  the 
wars  of  Syria  and  Egypt  for  the  possession  of  Palestine  turn  entirely 
on  verse  30  (Heb.  31),  the  "  wild  beast  of  the  reeds"  (R.V.)  being  taken 
to  mean  the  Egyptians,  and  the  "  multitude  of  bulls  "  the  Syrians. 
But  the  psalm,  which  combines  an  historical  retrospect  of  Jehovah's 
mighty  deeds  of  old  with  the  hope  that  He  will  speedily  arise  once 
more  to  confound  the  nations,  redeem  His  people,  and  raise  Israel  to 


440  THE    FIFTY-FIRST 


the  estate  of  glory  predicted  by  Isa.  Ix.  and  similar  passages,  really 
contains  no  definite  historical  reference ;  though  one  may  guess  that 
the  hopes  it  expresses  on  the  ground  of  ancient  prophecy  had  been 
kindled  into  fresh  ardour  by  signs  of  dissolution  in  the  world-king- 
doms. It  may  date  from  the  catastrophe  of  the  Persian  empire ; 
and  I  doubt  whether  any  date  later  than  this,  and  yet  prior  to  the 
Maccabee  period,  was  calculated  to  revive  theocratic  hopes  and 
ideals  that  had  slept  through  the  long  period  of  slavery  to  Persia. 
Psalms  Ixviii.  Ixxii.  ought,  I  think,  to  be  considered  along  with  the 
Book  of  Joel  and  chaps,  xxiv.-xxvii.  of  Isaiah. 

Additional  Note  E  (p.  221). — The  Fifty-fiest  Psalm 

Recent  supporters  of  the  Davidic  authorship  of  Ps.  li.  take  the 
two  last  verses  as  a  later  addition  (Perowne,  Delitzsch).  But 
every  one  can  see  that  the  omission  of  these  verses  makes  the  Psalm 
end  abruptly,  and  a  closer  examination  reveals  a  connection  of 
thought  between  verses  16,  17  (Heb.  18,  19)  and  verses  18,  19 
(Heb.  20,  21).  At  present,  says  the  Psalmist,  God  desires  no 
material  sacrifice,  but  will  not  despise  a  contrite  heart.  How  does 
the  Psalmist  know  that  God  takes  no  pleasure  in  sacrifice  ?  Not  on 
the  principle  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  wicked  is  sin,  for  the  sacrifice 
of  the  contrite  whose  person  God  accepts  must  be  acceptable  if  any 
sacrifice  is  so.  But  does  the  Psalmist  then  mean  to  say,  absolutely 
and  in  general,  that  sacrifice  is  a  superseded  thing  ?  No ;  for  he 
adds  that  when  Jerusalem  is  rebuilt  the  sacrifice  of  Israel  (not 
merely  his  own  sacrifice)  will  be  pleasing  to  God.  He  lives,  there- 
fore, in  a  time  when  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  has  temjDorarily  suspended 
the  sacrificial  ordinances,  but — and  this  is  the  great  lesson  of  the 
Psalm — has  not  closed  the  door  of  forgiveness  to  the  penitent 
heart. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  main  thought  of  the  Psalm,  and  see 
whether  it  does  not  suit  this  situation  as  well  as  the  supposed 
reference  to  the  life  of  David.  The  two  special  points  in  the  Psalm 
on  which  the  historical  reference  may  be  held  to  turn  are  verse  14, 
" Deliver  me  from  blood-guiltiness,"  and  verse  11,  "Take  not  thy 
Holy  Spirit  from  me."  Under  the  Old  Testament  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  not  given  to  every  believer,  but  to  Israel  as  a  nation  (Isa.  Ixiii. 
10,  11),  residing  in  chosen  organs,  especially  in  the  proj^hets,  who 
are  jpar  excellence  "  men  of  the  Spirit  "  (Hos.  ix.  7).  But  the  Spirit 
of  Jehovah  was  also  given  to  David  (1  Sam.  xvi.  13;  2  Sam.  xxiii. 


NOTE  E  PSALM  441 

2).  The  Psalm  then,  so  far  as  this  phrase  goes,  may  be  a  Psalm  of 
Israel  collectively,  of  a  prophet,  or  of  David.  Again,  the  phrase 
"  Deliver  me  from  blood-guiltiness  "  is  to  be  understood  after  Psalm 
xxxix.  8,  "  Deliver  me  from  all  my  transgressions,  make  me  not  the 
reproach  of  the  foolish."  In  the  Old  Testament  the  experience  of 
forgiveness  is  no  mere  subjective  feeling ;  it  rests  on  facts.  In  the 
New  Testament  the  assurance  of  forgiveness  lays  hold  of  the  work 
and  victory  of  Christ,  it  lies  in  the  actual  realisation  of  victory  over 
the  world  in  Him.  In  the  Old  Testament,  in  like  manner,  some 
saving  act  of  God  is  the  evidence  of  forgiveness.  The  sense  of 
forgiveness  is  the  joy  of  God's  salvation  (ver.  12),  and  the  word 
"  salvation  "  (V^^)  is,  I  believe,  always  used  of  some  visible  delivery 
and  enlargement  from  distress.  God's  wrath  is  felt  in  His  chastise- 
ment, His  forgiveness  in  the  removal  of  affliction,  when  His  people 
cease  to  be  the  reproach  of  the  foolish.  Hence  the  expression 
"deliver  me."  But  blood-guiltiness  (D''d)  does  not  necessarily 
mean  the  guilt  of  murder.  It  means  mortal  sin  (Ezek.  xviii.  13), 
such  sin  as,  if  it  remains  unatoned,  withdraws  God's  favour  from 
His  land  and  people  (Deut,  xxi.  8  sq. ;  Isa.  i.  15).  Bloodshed  is  the 
typical  offence  among  those  which  under  the  ancient  law  of  the  First 
Legislation  are  not  to  be  atoned  for  by  a  pecuniary  compensation, 
but  demand  the  death  of  the  sinner.  The  situation  of  the  Psalm, 
therefore,  does  not  necessarily  presuppose  such  a  case  as  David's. 
It  is  equally  applicable  to  the  prophet,  labouring  under  a  deep  sense 
that  he  has  discharged  his  calling  inadequately  and  may  have  the 
guilt  of  lost  lives  on  his  head  (Ezek.  xxxiii.),  or  to  collective  Israel 
in  the  Captivity,  when,  according  to  the  prophets,  it  was  the  guilt 
of  blood  equally  with  the  guilt  of  idolatry  that  removed  God's  favour 
from  His  land  (Jer.  vii.  6 ;  Hosea  iv.  2,  vi.  8 ;  Isa.  iv.  4).  Nay, 
from  the  Old  Testament  point  of  view,  in  which  the  experience  of 
wrath  and  forgiveness  stands  generally  in  such  immediate  relation 
to  Jehovah's  actual  dealings  with  the  nation,  the  whole  thought  of 
the  Psalm  is  most  simply  understood  as  a  prayer  for  the  restoration 
and  sanctification  of  Israel  in  the  mouth  of  a  prophet  of  the  Exile. 
For  the  immediate  fruit  of  forgiveness  is  that  the  singer  will  resume 
the  prophetic  function  of  teaching  sinners  Jehovah's  ways  (ver.  13). 
This  is  little  appropriate  to  David,  whose  natural  and  right  feeling 
in  connection  with  his  great  sin  must  rather  have  been  that  of  silent 
humiliation  than  of  an  instant  desire  to  preach  his  forgiveness  to 
other  sinners.  The  whole  experience  of  David  with  Nathan  moves 
in  another  plane.     The  Psalmist  writes  out  of  the  midst  of  present 


442  THE    DEVELOPMENT    OF  note  f 

judgments  of  God  (the  Captivity).  To  David,  the  pain  of  death, 
remitted  on  his  repentance,  lay  in  the  future  (2  Sam.  xii.  13)  as  an 
anticipated  judgment  of  God,  the  remission  of  which  would  hardly 
produce  the  exultant  joy  of  verse  12.  On  the  other  hand,  the  whole 
thought  of  the  Psalm,  as  Hitzig  points  out  and  Delitzsch  acknow- 
ledges, moves  in  exact  parallel  with  the  spiritual  experience  of  Israel 
in  the  Exile  as  conceived  in  connection  with  the  personal  experience 
of  a  prophet  in  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  The  Psalm  is  a  psalm  of  the  true 
Israel  of  the  Exile  in  the  mouth  of  a  prophet,  perhaps  of  the  very 
prophet  who  wrote  the  last  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah. 

Additional  Note  F  (p.  382). — The  Development  of  the 
Ritual  System  between  Ezekiel  and  Ezra 

Ezekiel's  ideal  sketch  of  institutions  for  the  restored  theocracy 
was  written  in  572,  the  return  from  exile  followed  in  538,  the  re- 
building of  the  Temple  was  completed  in  516,  Ezra's  covenant  and 
the  first  introduction  of  the  present  Pentateuch  fall  in  444  B.C.  In 
the  text  of  Lecture  XII.  I  have  limited  myself  to  the  broad  and  in- 
disputable statement  that  the  development  of  the  priestly  system 
falls  between  572  and  444.  Is  it  possible  to  throw  any  further 
light  on  the  details  of  the  process  1  Not  much,  perhaps,  since  our 
sources  for  the  history  of  Jerusalem  in  this  period  are  very  meagre, 
and  our  knowledge  of  the  Jews  in  Babylonia  and  Susiana,  from 
whom  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  came,  is  still  more  defective ;  but  there 
are  one  or  two  things  to  be  said  on  the  subject  which  may  be  worth 
bearing  in  mind. 

(1.)  It  is  plain  that  Ezekiel's  sketch  could  not  have  been  taken 
by  the  returning  exiles  as  a  practical  code  of  ritual.  It  is  an  ideal 
picture,  presupposing  a  complete  restoration  of  all  the  tribes  and 
their  resettlement  under  a  native  prince  in  a  land  prepared  for  their 
reception  by  physical  changes  of  a  miraculous  kind.  In  giving  this 
imaginative  form  to  his  picture  of  what  restored  Israel  ought  to  be, 
Ezekiel  uses  the  literary  freedom  appropriate  to  the  prophetic  style  ; 
but  for  that  very  reason  his  sketch  could  only  supply  general 
principles  and  suggestive  hints  on  points  of  detail  for  the  actual 
constitution  of  the  community  of  the  second  Temple. 

(2.)  That  the  Book  of  Ezekiel  was  known  to  the  leaders  of  the 
returning  exiles,  and  influenced  their  conduct,  is  inferred  from  the 
fact  that  the  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites  is  recognised 
in  the  list  of  those  who  came  up  with  Zerubbabel  (Neh.  vii.).     The 


NOTE  F  THE    RITUAL    SYSTEM  443 

foundation  of  this  distinction  is  indeed  older  than  Ezekiel,  for  it  is 
at  bottom  merely  the  distinction  between  the  Temple  priests  and 
the  priests  of  the  high  places.  And  up  to  the  time  of  Nehemiah 
one  family  seems  to  have  held  an  ambiguous  position,  claiming  the 
rights  of  priesthood,  but  unable  to  prove  it  by  showing  their  gene- 
alogy (Neh.  vii.  63  sqq.).  Yet  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that,  apart 
from  Ezekiel,  the  distinction  w^ould  have  been  drawn  so  sharply  at 
the  first  moment  of  the  return ;  especially  when  we  consider  that 
the  written  law  of  the  age  of  the  Restoration  was  the  Deuteronomic 
Code,  and  that  the  theory  of  that  code,  in  which  there  is  no  contrast 
between  the  priesthood  and  the  house  of  Levi,  still  dominates  in  the 
prophecy  of  Malachi,  which  no  one  will  place  earlier  than  450-460 
B.C.  That  the  incongruity  between  the  Deuteronomic  theory  and 
the  actual  organisation  of  the  Temple  ministry  was  not  felt  in 
Malachi's  time  appears  to  receive  a  sufficient  explanation  from  the 
relatively  inconsiderable  number  of  Levites  who  were  not  recognised 
as  priests ;  ^  the  list  of  Neh.  vii.  gives  4289  priests  to  74  Levites, 
and  this  disproportion  was  not  corrected  by  the  admission  into  the 
ranks  of  the  Levites  of  singers,  porters,  and  other  subordinate 
ministers,  till  after  the  Reformation  of  Ezra  {siipra^  p.  204). 

Another  trace  of  the  influence  of  Ezekiel  may  perhaps  be  seen 
in  the  stone  platform  that  served  as  an  altar  in  the  second  Temple. 
But  it  is  more  likely  that  both  Ezekiel  and  the  returning  exiles 
followed  the  model  of  the  altar  of  Ahaz. 

A  less  ambiguous  sign  of  Ezekiel's  influence  appears  in  Zech. 
iii.  7,  where  a  principal  function  of  the  high  priest  is  to  keep  God's 
courts.  Here  we  have  an  unmistakable  indication  that  Ezekiel's 
conception  of  holiness,  and  his  jealousy  of  profane  contact  with  holy 
things,  had  been  taken  up  by  the  spiritual  leaders  of  the  new  Jeru- 
salem. There  is,  therefore,  a  strong  presumption  that  from  the  first 
the  arrangements  and  ritual  of  the  second  Temple  were  more  closely 
conformed  to  the  principle  of  concentric  circles  of  holiness  than  those 
of  the  first  Temple  had  been. 

Once  more — and  this  is  the  most  important  point  of  all — it  wdll 
hardly  be  questioned  that,  from  the  first  days  of  the  return,  the 
spontaneous  service  of  the  people  fell  into  the  background  behind 
the  stated  representative  ritual.  This  is  one  of  the  most  character- 
istic points  of  Ezekiel's  Torah ;  and  it  was  the  less  likely  to  be 
without  practical  influence,  because  all  the  conditions  of  the  time 

1  Compare  the  older  priestly  account  of  the  rebellion  of  Korah,  according  to 
Kuenen's  analysis. 


444  THE    STATED    SACRIFICES  note  f 

co-operated  in  its  favour.  To  prove  that  the  stated  public  sacrifices 
were  regularly  maintained  before  Ezra's  Reformation,  we  cannot 
appeal  with  confidence  to  Ezra  iii.  2  sqq.,  vi.  17  sqq.,  for  these  verses 
are  due  to  the  compiler  of  Ezra-Nehemiah-Chronicles,  with  whose 
indifference  to  historical  perspective  we  are  now  familiar.  And  it 
is  certain  that  before  Ezra's  covenant  the  Levitical  ritual  was  not 
maintained  in  all  its  parts.  But  it  is  equally  certain  that  the  com- 
piler is  right  in  affirming  that  the  altar  was  built  before  the  Temple 
(comp.  Hag.  ii.  14),  and  that  he  must  have  learned  this  fact  from 
good  historical  sources.  Now  the  altar  of  the  second  Temple  is 
essentially  an  altar  of  burnt-offering,  i.e.  destined  for  public  and 
atoning  functions,  not  for  the  reception  of  the  blood  of  private 
sacrifices.  That  the  stated  services  of  the  first  ninety  years  of  the 
new  Jerusalem  were  much  less  elaborate  and  costly  than  the  Priestly 
Code  prescribes  seems  to  follow  from  Ezra  ix.  5,  where  we  learn 
that  in  458  B.C.  the  evening  oblation  was  still  only  a  minha,  or 
cereal  offering.  The  same  thing  follows  still  more  clearly  from 
Neh.  X.  32,  where  we  see  that  a  new  voluntary  tax  became  neces- 
sary when  the  full  Pentateuchal  ritual  was  introduced.  Before  that 
time  the  stated  service  appears  to  have  been  maintained,  with  much 
grumbling  and  in  an  imperfect  way,  at  the  expense  of  the  priests 
(Mai.  i.  6-13)  ;i  for  it  will  readily  be  understood  that  in  an  empire 
so  loosely  organised  as  that  of  Persia,  the  royal  grants  in  favour  of 
the  Temple  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Ezra  would  receive  little 
attention  from  the  local  authorities,  who  viewed  the  Jews  with  no 
favour.  That  in  spite  of  all  this  the  stated  service  was  in  some 
measure  kept  up,  proves  that  great  importance  Avas  attached  to  it. 
In  fact,  we  see  from  Malachi  that  Jehovah's  blessing  on  the  land  was 
held  to  be  conditional  on  a  proper  discharge  of  the  representative 
priestly  service  of  the  house  of  Levi  (Mai.  ii.  2,  iii.  3,  4) ;  so  that 

^  The  whole  of  this  passage  refers  to  the  imperfect  maintenance  by  the 
priests  of  the  stated  service,  and  especially  of  the  stated  burnt-offering.  The 
recognition  of  this  fact  has  been  impeded  by  a  graphical  error  in  the  text  of 
verse  12,  where  for  nt^J  l^''^")  we  must  read  111231  ;  by  accident  2131  was  written 
twice  over.  The  sense,  therefore,  is  not  that  the  priests  grumbled  at  the  food 
they  derived  from  the  altar,  but  that  they  thought  Jehovah's  altar  a  vile  thing 
for  which  any  oblation  was  good  enough.  The  phrase  v3N  is  exactly  equivalent 
to  the  ritual  term  TWiV  DPI^,  and  the  whole  passage  shows  that  Malachi,  whose 
law-book  is  Deuteronomy,  and  who  does  not  know  the  Priestly  Code  (comiD. 
supra,  p.  425  sq.),  entirely  agrees  with  the  importance  attached  by  that  code  to  the 
tamid.  The  emendation  here  proposed  for  Mai.  i.  12  has  already  appeared  in  the 
Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools  ;  having  been  communicated  by  me  to  the  Editor  of 
that  Series.  I  mention  this  Ijecause  it  appears  there  (doubtless  by  inadvertence) 
without  acknowledgment. 


THE    HIGH    PRIEST  445 


in  this  respect  the  actual  praxis  of  the  second  Temple  moved  on  the 
lines  of  Ezekiel,  and  in  the  direction  of  the  Priestly  Code. 

(3.)  A  movement  beyond  Ezekiel  and  in  the  direction  of  the 
finished  Priestly  Code  can  be  most  clearly  observed  with  regard  to 
the  position  of  the  high  priest.  The  second  Temple  never  had  a 
high  priest  corresponding  to  the  full  priestly  ideal — a  high  priest 
with  Urim  and  Thummim  (Neh.  vii.  65).  But  from  the  time  of 
Ezra  downwards,  a  certain  princely  character  attached  to  the  office, 
and  the  very  insignia  of  the  high  priest  described  in  the  Code,  his 
crown  and  his  purple  robes,  correspond  with  this.  For  that  these 
insignia  are  not  priestly  but  princely,  is  practically  acknowledged  in 
the  ritual  of  the  Great  Day  of  Atonement.  This  also  is  a  change 
in  the  line  of  natural  historical  development,  as  appears  from  the 
fact  that  princely  high  priests  are  found  all  over  the  East  at  great 
sanctuaries,  after  the  fall  of  the  old  nationalities  (comp.  Enc.  Brit., 
9th  ed.,  art.  Priest).  Under  the  kings  the  chief  priest  had  no 
monarchical  character,  even  in  sacred  things,  and  Ezekiel,  who  looks 
for  the  restoration  of  a  modified  kingship,  does  not  speak  of  a  high 
priest.  But  the  restored  community  had  no  civil  independence,  and 
it  was  only  in  exceptional  cases  that  its  civil  head  was  a  pious  Jew 
(Zerubbabel,  Nehemiah),  in  sympathy  with  the  distinctive  religious 
aims  and  principles  which  were  the  only  surviving  expression  of 
Hebrew  nationality.  Hence  the  patriots  in  Israel  necessarily  came 
to  look  on  the  priesthood  as  their  natural  heads,  and  the  chief  priest 
as  the  leader  of  the  community ;  and  there  were  obvious  reasons  of 
convenience  which  would  lead  the  civil  authorities  to  accept  him, 
for  many  purposes,  as  the  representative  of  the  people,  in  much  the 
same  way  as  the  heads  of  Christian  churches  in  the  East  are  now 
accepted  by  Moslem  governments.  We  do  not  see  much  of  this  in 
the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  for  special  reasons.  At  this  time 
there  was  a  great  slackness  in  religious  things,  which  Malachi 
ascribes  mainly  to  want  of  loyalty  to  Jehovah  on  the  part  of  the 
priesthood.  Before  Nehemiah's  arrival  Ezra's  chief  opponents  in 
the  matter  of  mixed  marriages  were  found  among  the  priests,  while 
his  supporters  were  the  lay  aristocracy  (Ezra  ix.  x. ;  comp.  Mai.  ii. 
12,  13);  and  Nehemiah  came  in  with  a  high  hand  superseding  all 
local  authority.  But  the  practical  failure  of  Ezra's  first  attempt  at 
reformation,  in  458,  was  doubtless  due  to  the  opposition  of  the 
priests,  and  is  the  best  evidence  of  their  power;  and  indeed  the 
reason  why  the  priests  were  not  hearty  in  the  cause  of  reformation 
was  that  they,  and  especially  the  high  priestly  family,  had  formed 


446  THE    TITHES  note  f 

matrimonial  alliances  with  the  heads  of  foreign  communities  (Neh. 
xiii.  4,  28).  That  such  alliances  were  made  and  sought,  shows  that 
by  those  outside  the  house  of  Eliashib  the  high  priest  was  regarded  as 
the  highest  aristocracy  of  Jerusalem.  But  indeed  the  pre-eminence 
of  the  high  priest  is  already  clearly  marked,  in  the  first  generation 
after  the  return,  in  the  Book  of  Zechariah.  I  agree  with  Ewald, 
and  others  after  him,  that  Zechariah  vi.  9-15  has  been  retouched,  and 
that  the  crowns  (or  crown)  of  verse  11  must  in  the  original  text 
have  been  set  on  the  head  of  Zeruhhabel  and  Joshua  (or  perhaps  of 
Zerubbabel  alone  :  so  Wellhausen) ;  for  in  verse  13  the  high  priest's 
throne  is  still  clearly  distinguished  from  that  of  the  civil  jDrince. 
But  even  so  the  place  of  the  high  priest  is  much  higher  than  it  had 
ever  been  under  the  first  Temple  ;  and  even  the  unction  of  the  high 
priest,  which  is  a  notable  point  in  the  Priests'  Code,  is  prefigured 
in  Zech.  iv.  14,  while  the  tiara  is  conferred  upon  him  in  Zec.h.  iii.  5.^ 

(4.)  I  now  come  to  a  matter  on  which  there  is  more  dispute. 
One  of  the  most  notable  points  in  the  Priests'  Code  is  the  greatly- 
increased  provision  for  the  clergy.  Does  the  law  in  this  point  also 
follow  lines  of  development  that  had  already  been  marked  out  in  the 
praxis  of  the  second  Temple  1     I  think  that  it  does. 

It  is  self-evident  that  the  provision  for  the  priesthood  contained 
in  the  Deuteronomic  Code  could  not  (in  a  small  and  poor 
community)  have  sufficed  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Temple 
ministry  and  ritual  even  on  the  most  meagre  scale.  It  was 
supplemented,  no  doubt,  by  gifts,  especially  from  pious  Jews  of  the 
Diaspora ;  but  the  need  for  an  increased  stated  provision  must  have 
been  felt  very  soon.  One  departure  from  the  Deuteronomic  law 
was  certainly  made — the  priests  and  Levites  were  allowed  to  hold 
land  (Neh.  iii.  22,  xiii.  10),  But  this  did  not  provide  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  ministers  in  actual  attendance  at  the  Temple ; 
and  from  Mai.  iii.  8,  9,  it  appears  that  the  food  of  Jehovah's 
household  was  derived  from  the  tithe  and  the  tWuma  (A.  V.  tithes 
and  ofiferings).  It  is  commonly  assumed  that  Malachi  wrote  after 
444  B.C.,  and  is  here  referring  to  the  Levitical  tithe  of  the  Priestly 
Code  ;  but  this  view  is,  I  think,  inadmissible,  when  we  consider  the 
unambiguous  proofs  afforded  by  all  other  parts  of  the  book  that  the 
written  Torah  of  Malachi  is  the  pre-priestly  Pentateuch,  especially 
Deuteronomy  (su]yra,  p.  426).      Even  in  the  verse  before  us  the 

1  A.  V.  "mitre,"  Hebrew  P|''J^.  Zechariali  had  not  the  Priestly  Code  before 
him,  else  he  would  have  used  the  word  nSJ^D  ;  but  the  two  words  mean  the 
same  thing,  viz.  the  princely  tiara. 


I 


THE    SABBATH  447 


expressions  used  are  those  of  Deuteronomy,^  and  the  "  whole  tithe  " 
is  the  technical  Deuteronomic  name  for  the  charity-tithe  of  the  third 
year,  in  which  the  poor  Levites  had  a  part  (Deut.  xiv.  28,  xxvi.  12). 
That  under  the  circumstances  of  the  second  Temple  the  sacred 
ministers  absorbed  the  whole  charity-tithe,  and  that,  instead  of 
being  stored  and  consumed  in  the  country  towns,  it  was  brought  up 
to  the  Temple  treasury  for  the  use  of  the  ministers  on  duty,  are 
changes  perfectly  natural,  or  even  inevitable,  which  required  no  new 
written  law  to  justify  them. 

(5.)  There  is  direct  evidence  that  the  elaborate  festal  ordinances 
of  the  Priests'  Code  contained  things  that  had  never  been  practised 
under  the  second  Temple.  And  with  this  it  agrees  that  the  oldest 
priestly  calendar  of  festal  ordinances  (contained  in  Lev.  xxiii.)  is 
simpler  than  the  calendar  of  Num.  xxviii.  xxix.,  which  belongs  to 
the  main  body  of  the  code,  though  even  this  simpler  rule  contains 
things  that  were  not  practised  before  Ezra  (verses  40  sqq.  compared 
with  Neh.  viii.  17).  But  the  type  of  the  priestly  feasts  was  already 
given  in  practice ;  for  in  Mai.  ii.  3  the  festal  sacrifices  (A.  V.  feasts) 
are  the  sacrifices  of  the  priests,  i.e.  a  representative  service,  not  the 
free-will  offerings  of  the  pre-exile  festivities.  And  the  crowning 
stone  of  the  priestly  edifice,  the  Day  of  Atonement,  was  indeed  an 
innovation,  but  one  for  which  the  way  had  been  prepared  by  the 
annual  fasts  mentioned  in  Zech.  vii.  3,  5. 

(6.)  The  stricter  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  of  other 
ceremonies  that  could  be  practised  in  the  Dispersion  as  easily  as  at 
Jerusalem,  seems  to  have  begun  in  the  Diaspora,  where  these  means 
of  realising  Israel's  holiness  in  the  midst  of  the  Gentiles  would 
naturally  have  a  special  value  for  the  j^ious  ;  cp.  Isa.  Ivi.,  Iviii.  13. 
On  the  other  hand,  Malachi,  writing  at  Jerusalem,  does  not  touch 
on  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  though  this  was  one  of  the  points 
of  discipline  which  Xehemiah  found  particular  difliculty  in  enforcing 
(Xeh.  xiii.  15  sqq.).  In  this  matter,  as  in  that  of  mixed  marriages, 
the  Diaspora  took  the  lead,  and  Jerusalem  followed  reluctantly. 
And  in  other  matters  also  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  the  Jews  who 
remained  in  exile  had  a  substantial  part  in  the  development  of  all 
points  of  ceremonial  not  directly  connected  wdth  the  Temple,  e.g.  the 
domestic  rites  of  the  passover.^ 

1  Tithe  andiViJ/na  are  associated  as  in  Deut,  xii.  6,  11.  In  the  Priestly  Code 
t'ruma  always  means  a  due  paid  to  the  priests  as  distinct  from  the  Levites,  so  that 
tithe  and  t'nhiia  would  be  disparate  ideas,  not  a  closely  connected  pair  as  in 
Deuteronomy  and  Malachi. 

2  The  paschal  lamb  is  unknown  to  Deuteronomy  and  to  Ezekiel.     Its  ritual 


448  AUTHORSHIP    OF  note  f 

(7.)  There  are  some  things  in  the  Priests'  Code,  such  as  the 
ordinance  for  Levitical  cities  and  the  law  of  Jubilee,  which  were  never 
put  in  practice,  and  which,  at  the  time  when  they  were  written, 
must  have  been  regarded  as  purely  ideal.  They  were  necessary  to 
round  oflf  the  system  of  ordinances  from  a  theoretical  point  of  view, 
but  their  presence  in  the  Code  has  no  other  practical  significance 
than  to  indicate  that  under  the  existing  political  conditions  a  perfect 
theocracy  was  unattainable.  But  these  features  must  not  prevent 
us  from  recognising  the  skill  with  which  the  priestly  writer  combines 
in  systematic  form  a  vast  complex  of  ordinances  old  and  new, 
making  up  a  complete  theory  of  individual  and  national  holiness, 
and  yet  keeping  so  close  to  existing  practice  or  existing  tendencies 
that  his  work  served  as  the  permanent  basis  of  all  Jewish  life  since 
Ezra. 

It  may  be  observed  in  conclusion  that  while  the  code  is  written 
throughout  from  a  priestly  standpoint,  it  cannot  possibly  be  regarded 
as  the  programme  of  the  priestly  aristocracy  in  Jerusalem.  It  is 
true  that,  among  other  results  of  greater  importance,  Ezra's 
Reformation,  like  that  of  Josiah  before  it,  did  in  the  long  run 
give  a  great  increase  of  importance  to  the  higher  priesthood.  But 
to  infer  that  it  was  the  work  of  the  chief  priests  of  Jerusalem 
would  be  as  absurd  and  unhistorical  as  to  make  Abii  Sofyan  the 
author  of  Islam,  because  the  Meccan  aristocracy,  and  his  family  in 
particular,  reaped  the  material  fruits  of  Mohammed's  work.  All 
the  historical  indications  point  to  the  priestly  aristocracy  as  being 
the  chief  opponents  of  Ezra ;  their  opposition,  no  doubt,  was  short- 
sighted ;  but  the  heads  of  a  hereditary  aristocracy  are  not  generally 
gifted  with  the  kind  of  insight  which  comes  of  broad  sympathies  and 
a  large  comprehension  of  the  spiritual  and  political  movements  of 
their  time.  The  Priests'  Code  has  far  too  many  points  of  contact 
Avith  the  actual  situation  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  actual  usage 
of  the  second  Temple,  to  lend  plausibility  to  the  view  that  it 
was  an  abstract  system  evolved  in  Babylonia,  by  some  one 
who  was  remote  from  the  contemporary  movement  at  Jerusalem ; 
but  on  the  other  hand  its  author  must  have  stood  (whether  by  his 

presents  some  very  antique  features,  but  cannot  in  its  final  form  be  older  than  the 
Exile.  In  the  Priestly  Code  this  domestic  sacrifice  is  still  quite  distinct  from  the 
public  ritual,  as  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  its  institution  (like  that  of  the 
Sabbath,  the  Noachic  ordinances,  and  circumcision)  is  i^laced  before  the  Sinaitic 
revelation.  It  was  ultimately  incorporated  in  the  rites  of  the  sanctuary  by  the 
traditional  rule  that  the  paschal  lamb  must  be  killed  at  the  Temple.  This  was 
already  the  practice  in  the  time  of  the  Chronicler  (2  Chron.  xxx.  17,  xxxv.  6,  11  ; 
Ezra  vi.  20). 


NOTE  F  THE    PRIESTS     CODE  449 

circumstances,  or  by  his  strength  of  mind  and  firm  faitli  in  the 
principles  on  which  his  work  is  based)  outside  the  petty  local 
entanglements  that  hampered  the  Judt^an  priests.  So  much  it  is 
safe  to  say ;  to  go  farther  and  conjecture  that  Ezra  himself  was  the 
author  of  the  Priests'  Code  is  to  step  into  a  region  of  purely 
arbitrary  guesswork.  And  such  a  conjecture  is  at  least  not  favoured 
by  the  consideration  that  the  Torah  of  444  B.C.  was  not  the  Priests' 
Code  by  itself  but  (essentially)  our  present  complex  Pentateuch. 
It  is  hardly  probable  that  the  same  man  first  wrote  the  Priestly 
Code,  then  combined  it  with  the  pre-priestly  ^book  to  form  a 
Hexateuch,  and  finally  obtained  canonical  authority,  not  for  his 
whole  book,  but  for  five-sixths  of  it.  The  Canon  of  444  must 
surely  have  been  the  Pentateuch  alone ;  for  how  else  could  the 
Book  of  Joshua  have  fallen  into  the  lower  position  of  a  prophetical 
book  1  And  if  this  be  so  the  presumption  is  strong  that  Ezra,  the 
man  of  action,  had  no  personal  share  in  the  shaping  of  the 
Pentateuch,  unless  perhaps  it  was  he  who  cut  off  the  Book  of 
Joshua,  so  as  to  limit  the  compass  of  the  Law  to  matters  directly 
practical. 


29 


INDEX  OF  SOME  PASSAGES  DISCUSSED 
OE  ILLUSTEATED 


Gen.  vi.  5-ix.  17,  330 
xxi.  8  sq.,  417 
xxiii.,  417 
Exotl.  xix.-xxxiv.,  S36  note 
XX.  26,  358  note 
xxi. -xxiii.,  318  sq.,  340  sq. 
xxxii.-xxxiv.,  397  sq. 
xxxiv.,  335 
XXXV. -xl.,  124  sq. 
Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.,  396,  428  sq. 
Num.  X.  29  sq.,  321,  409 
xi.  xii.,  400 
xiii.  xiv.,  400  sq. 
xvi.,  402  sq. 
xx.-xxiv.,  405  sq. 
XXV.  1-5,  404  note 
xxxiii.,  404,  406 
Deut.  i.  22-40,  402 
i. -XXX.,  393  sq. 
X.  6,  405 
X.  8,  361  note 

xii.-xxvi.,  258,  318,  356  sq. 
xiv.  3-21,  366  sq. 
xxi.  10  sq.,  368 
xxii.  5,  365 
xxii.  30,  369 
xxvii.  22,  370  note 
Josh,  viii.,  133 
xiv.  6-14,  402 
xxiv.,  395 
Judg.  i.,  131 
v.  25,  132 
xviii.  30,  361  note 
1  Sam.  i.  20  sq.,  209 
ii.  27-36,  266  7iote 
ix.-xi.,  135  sq. 
xiii.  7-15,  134 
xiv.  18,  81 
xvii.  120  sq.,  431 
xviii.,  122 
xix.  24,  130 


1  Sam.  XX.  19,  41,  80  5^. 

XXX.  24,  25,  386 

2  Sam.  iv.  5-7,  82 

xvii.  3,  83 

1  Kings  viii.  53  (LXX.),  124,  433 

xi.  29-39,  118 
xii.  1  sq.,  117 
xiv.,  119 

2  Kings  iii.  16  sq.,  Ii7 

xi.  12,  311  note 
xiii.  22  (LXX.),  435 
xxii.  xxiii.,  257  sq. 

1  Chron.  iii.  19  sq.,  140  note 

2  Chron.  xxxiv.  3,  144  7iote 
Neh.  xiii.  1-3,  427  7iote 
Ps.  xiii.  xliii.,  193  7wte 

xliv.  Ixxiv.  Ixxix.,  207  sq.,  438 

li.,  221,  440 

Ixi.  Ixiii.,  438 

Ixxviii.,  213  note 

] xxxiii.,  439 

Ixxxvi.,  197,  435 

cxxxiii.,  212  note 
Isa.  xl.-lxvi.,  98  sq. 

Ixv.  8,  209 
Jer.  xxvii.  1,  97 

xxvii.  5-22,  104  sq. 

xxxiii.  14-26,  107 

1.  li.,  97 
Ezek.  xliv.  6-15,  260,  377 
Hos.  iii.  240  note 

ix.  3  sq.,  150 
Am.  v.  25  (emended),  294 
Zech.  iii.  7,  443 

vi.  9-15,  446 
Mai.  i.  12  (emended),  444 

iii.  8,  9,  446 
iv,  4,  425  sq. 
2  Mac.  ii.  13  sq.,  170 
2  Esdr.  xiv.  44  so.,  168 


( 


GENERAL   INDEX 


Aarox,  death  of,  405  ;  sous  of,  246, 
257,  266  note 

Abraham,  Priestly  story  of,  415  sq. 

Acrostic  jisalms,  193 

Ahab,  116,  237 

Ahaz,  265,  443 

Ai,  taking  of,  133 

Akiba,  exegetic  method  of,  63  ;  and 
tlie  Canon,  184  sq. 

Alphabet,  Semitic,  70 

Al-taschith,  209 

Altar,  holiness  of,  229  ;  consecration 
of,  376  ;  as  asylum,  340,  354  ;  of 
Ahaz,  265,  443  ;  brazen,  265,  276  ; 
with  steps,  358  note  ;  of  the  second 
Temple,  ih.,  443  ;  altar-worship  in 
old  Israel,  239;  law  of  the  one 
altar,  245,  353 

Amora,  50  note 

Amos,  283,  288,  etc. 

Anonymous  books,  92  sq.  ;  psalms,  to 
Avhom  ascribed,  103 

Antilegomena,  166  sq.  ;  in  the  Old 
Testament,  178-187 

Antiochus  Epiphanes,  72,  207 

Aphek,  273,  435 

Apocrypha,  29  sq.,  153  sq.  ;  sup- 
pressed by  the  Rabbins,  167,  184 

Aquila,  30  note,  63  note,  64 

Aramaic,  35,  208  ;  versions  of  Scrip- 
ture, see  Targum 

Archetype  of  the  Massoretic  text,  57 
sq.,  69  sq. 

Aristeas,  85 

Ark  in  the  wilderness,  321  ;  at  Shiloh, 
268,  270  ;  borne  by  priests,  144  ;  in 
the  Priests'  Code,  246,  398  ;  in  Jere- 
miah, 107  ;  not  mentioned  in  Deu- 
teronomic  Code,  357  ;  in  heaven,  429 

Artaxerxes  Ochus,  207  sq.,  438 

Asaph,  Asaphites,  204  sq. 

Ashera,  241,  354 

Astarte  (Ashtoreth),  237,  243,  365 


Astruc,  327 

Asylum,  354 

Atonement,  372,    380  sq.  ;  bv  blood, 

229,   373  ;  great  Day  of,  229,  376, 

445 

Baal,  68,  285  ;  Tyrian,  237  ;  prophets 
of,  287  ;  Baal-Peor,  404  note 

Baalim,  local,  243 

Bagoses,  438 

Balaam,  404 

Bethel,  revelations  at,  416  ;  sanctuary 
at,  242,  264 

Bible,  order  of  books  in  the  Hebrew, 

149  sq.  ;    Jerome's  version  of,  25  ; 
Protestant  versions,  21  sq. 

Blood  not  to  be  eaten,  249  sq.,  345  ; 

offered  on  altar,  229  ;  see  Atonement 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  333  sq. ;  Josiah's, 

258 
Books,  number  of  the  Old  Testament, 

150  sq.  ;     sacred,     destroyed     by 
Antiochus,  72,  170 

Booty,  law  of,  386 

Cadi  of  the  Arabs,  304,  321 

Caleb,  402  ;  eponym  of  the  Calibbites, 
279  note 

Canaan,  conquest  of,  130  sq.,  413 

Canaanite  =  trader,  350 

Cauaanites  absorbed  among  Israel,  280 

Canon,  ecclesiastical,  25  ;  of  ScrijDture, 
149  sq,;  history  of  the  Jewish,  163 
sq. ;  Protestant  Canon,  31  ;  Trideu- 
tine  Canon,  28  sq. ;  Canon  and  tra- 
dition, 173  sq. 

Canticles,  canonicity  of,  185  ;  read  in 
Synagogue,  173  note  ;  allegorical 
interpretation  of,  164wofe;  sung  at 
banquets,  186 

('ajipellus,  Ludovicus,  75 

Cajitain  of  the  guard,  262  note 

Carites,  262  note 


454 


GENERAL    INDEX 


Charm,  Ex.  xv.  26  used  as,  185  note 
Chemarim,  259 

Cherethites  and  Pelethites,  262  note 
Cheyne,  Prof.,  189  note,  437  sq. 
Chronicles,    date   of,    140  ;    originally 

one  book  with  Ezra-Neh.,  182  sq.; 

historical  character  of,  140  sq. 
Copyists,  freedom  used  by,  91,  126  sq. 
Covenant,     Mosaic,     304,    333,    399  ; 

Josiah's,  257  sq.,  353  ;  Ezra's,   43, 

382 
Criminal  laws,  in  the  First  Legislation, 

340  ;  in  Deut.,  368 

Dan,    sanctuary  of,   242  ;    priesthood 

of,  359,  361  note 
Daniel,  Book  of,  180,  183  ;  Septuagint 

version  of,  154 
Dathan  and  Abiram,  402  sq. 
David,  and  Goliath,   120  sq.,  431  sq.; 

and  Saul,   123  ;   as  musician,   219  ; 

psalms  of,  197,  213  sq. 
Decadence  of  Israel,   347  ;   causes  of, 

349 
Decalogue,  see  Ten  Commandments 
Dedication  of  the  House,  see  Encaenia 
Deluge,  story  of  the,  329  sq. 
Deuteronomic   Code,    318  ;    compared 

with   Exod.    xxi.-xxiii.,    319    note  ; 

the  basis  of  Josiah's  reforms,  258  ; 

relation  of,  to  Exod.  xxi.-xxiii.,  319 

note;    to  Isaiah,  355   sq.,   364  sq.; 

not  forged  by  Hilkiah,  363  ;  laws  of 

sanctity  in,  365  sq. ;  civil  laws  of,  368 
Deuteronomistic  redaction  of  the  old 

history,  396,  425 
Deuteronomy,  historical  matter  in,  391  ; 

speeches  in,  394  6^*7. ;  fused  with  JE, 

425  ;   authority  of,  after  the  Exile, 

425  sq.;  priestly  elements  in,  412 
Dillmann,  392  note 

Divination,  285  sq. ;  and  prophecy,  288 
"Dogs,"  365  note 
Doxologies  in  the  Psalter,  194  sq. 
Driver,  Prof.,  222  note,  245  note,  389 

Ecclesiastes,  canonicity  of,  185  sq. ;  in 

the  Synagogue,  173  note 
Ecclesiasticus,  standpoint  of  the  author, 

159  sq.;  prologue  to,  178 
Egypt,  plagues  of,  418 
Eli,  house  of,  266,  268 
Elias  Levita,  169 
Elohim,   in  the  Psalter,  198  ;    in  the 

Pentateuch,  327  sq.,  414,  416,  424 
Elohist,  Elohistic  document,  393,  416 

sq.,  423  sq. 
Encaenia,  feast,  190,  211 
Ephod,  241  ;  linen,  270,  272 


2  Esdras,  151,  157,  168 

Esther,  canonicity  of,  183  sq. ;  twofoLl 
Greek  recension  of,  155  note 

Ethical  monotheism,  295 

Exegesis,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  22 
sq. ;  of  the  mediaeval  Rabbins,  53 

Exodus,  laws  of,  318  ;  priestly  ele- 
ments in,  397  sq.,  418  sq. 

Ezekiel,  controversy  as  to  his  book, 
llQnote  ;  his  Torah,  310,  374  sq.,Wl 

Ezra,  the  Scribe,  42  s^-. ;  and  the  Canon, 
171,  449  ;  Reformation  of,  43,  226, 
427,  445  ;  legends  about,  168,  277  ; 
his  book,  182  sq. 

Fasts,  annual,  376 

Feast  of  Tabernacles,  43,  257 

Feasts,  annual,  at  Shiloh,  268  sq.;  in 
the  First  Legislation,  342  ;  in  Deut., 
371  ;  in  the  Priests'  Code,  447 

First  Legislation,  318,  340  sq.;  iden- 
tical with  the  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
336 

Flood,  the,  329  5(7. 

Forbidden  degrees,  370  note 

Forbidden  meats,  366 

Forgeries  of  books,  17,  171 

Forgiveness,  doctrine  of,  306  sq. ;  ritual 
machinery  of,  229  sq. ;  see  Atonement 

Galli,  365 

Geraara,  50  note 

Genesis,  sources  of,  323  note,  327  sq., 

413  sq. 
Ger,  or  protected  stranger,  342  note 
Gibeon,  high  place  of,  276 
Gibeonites,  412  sq. 
Gittites,  262  note 
Golden  calves,  240,  242,  244 
Great  Synagogue,  169 

Hagar,  storv  of,  417 

Haggada,  44,'  180 

Hagiographa,  150,  178  sq.  ;  in  the 
Synagogue,  173  ;  translated  into 
Greek,  201 

Halacha,  44,  51,  77,  180 

Hallel,  the,  190  sq.,  211 

Hallelujah  psalms,  190,  211 

Hands,  the  Scriptures  detile  the,  185 

Basmonean  dynasty,  48 

Hebrew,  so-called,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 35  ;  vowel  points  and  accents, 
b%  sq.;  scholarship  of  the  Rabbins, 
37,  53  ;  of  the  Christian  Fathers, 
23  57. ;  of  the  Reformers,  32 

Hexapla  of  Origcn,  30,  89 

Hexateuch  (Pentateuch  and  Joshua), 
388  sq. 


GENERAL    INDEX 


455 


Hezekiah,  256,  352,  357 

Higher  criticism,  90  sq. 

High  places,  236,  239,  241,  243,  248, 

275,  322  note  ;  abolished  by- Josiah, 

257  ;  in  Deut.,  354  sq.  ;  priests  of 

the,  257,  360 
High  priest,  445 
Hiilel,  63,  184  note 
Historians,  method  of  Eastern,  IIS  sq., 

328 
Historical  books,  ajinnymous,   92  sq. ; 

composite  cliaracter  of  the,   in   Old 

Testament,  129  sq. 
Holiness,  in  Pentateuch,  228  ;  in  Dent., 

365  sq. ;    in  Ezekiel,   377  ;    Isaiah's 

doctrine  of,  364  ;  Law  of  (Lev.  xvii.- 

xxvi.),  323  note,  428  sq. 
Hvrcania,  Jews  led  captive  to,   208, 

438 
Hyrcauus,  John,  52,  159,  211 

Iamnia,  discussion  on  the  Canon  at, 
185  ;  seat  of  the  Scribes,  186  note 

Idolatry,  240  sq.,  355 

Ink,  71 

Isaiah  attacks  the  popular  worship, 
293  ;  and  the  idols,  355  ;  his 
doctrine  of  holiness,  364  ;  of  the 
sanctity  of  Zion,  356 

Isaiah,  Book  of.  100  sq. 

Ishbosheth  orEshbaal,  6S 

Israel,  personitied  in  the  Psalter,  189, 
220;  the  primary  subject  of  Old 
Testament  religion,  291,  308  note, 
348 

Ithamar,  360  note 

Jael  and  Sisera,  132 

Jashar,  Book  of,  124,  435 

Jahvist,  Jahvistic  document,  393,  414 
sq.,  423 

Jehoiada,  259,  262 

Jehoash,  coronation  of,  262,  311  note; 
deals  with  the  Temple  revenues,  264 

Jehovah  (lahwe),  77,  245  ;  popular 
worship  of,  242  sq.,  282 ;  not  a 
Canaanite  god,  245  ;  dwells  in  Zion, 
356  ;  in  the  mish/can,  246  ;  shows 
himself  in  the  thunderstorm,  247  ; 
Lord  of  the  whole  earth,  282  ;  jiro- 
phetic  doctrine  of  his  relation  to 
Israel,  283  sq.,  298  ;  his  word,  290, 
298  ;  moral  precepts  of,  304 

Jeremiah,  interpolations  in  his  book, 
97,  104  ;  prophecies  of,  against  the 
nations,  109 

Jeroboam,  history  of,  117  sq.  ;  his  re- 
ligious policy,  244 

Jerome,  his  translation   of  the  Bible, 


25,  29  sq.  ;  his  account  of  the 
Ai)ocrypha,  29  ;  Hebrew  text  read 
by,  56  ;  his  enumeration  of  the  Old 
Testament  books,  151 

Josephus  and  the  Canon,  151,  163  sq. 

Joshua,  Jlook  of,  composite  character 
of,  131,  133  ;  Deuteronomistic  ele- 
ments in,  396  ;  Priestly  do,,  412 

Josiah,  144,  147,  256  sq.,  353 

Jubilees,  Book  of,  62,  152  note 

Judah,  foreign  elements  in,  279 

Judges,  age  of  the,  235,  267 

Judith,  Book  of,  439 

Kabbala,  161,  173 

Kadesh,  404  sq. 

Kadhi,  see  Cadi 

Kaliin,  diviner,  same  word  as  KOhen, 

priest,  292 
Kemarim  (Chemarim),  259 
Kenizzites,  279  note 
Keri  and  Kethib,  59  sq. 
Kimhi,  E.  David,  32  sq. 
Kings,     Books     of,     their     structure, 

115  sq. 
Korah,  Korahites,  204  sq.,  402  5.2. 
Kuenen,  226,  245,  323  note,  389,  419, 

427 

Lamentations  ascribed  to  Jeremiah, 
181  ;  importance  of  the  book,  219 

Law,  function  of  the,  315  sq. 

Law,  oral,  45  sq.,  161,  173  ;  con- 
suetudinary, 304,  339  ;  of  Moses, 
311  sq. 

Law,  Prophets  and  Psalms,  177  sq. 

Leaven  in  sacrifice,  345 

Legal  fictions,  384  sq. 

Leptogenesis,  152  note 

Levites,  247  ;  before  Deuteronomy, 
359  ;  in  Ezekiel,  359  sq.  ;  in  the 
second  Temple,  443 ;  as  singers, 
204 

Levitical  law,  its  system,  228,  245  ; 
unknown  to  Josiah,  256  ;  in  Solo- 
mon's Temple,  259  ;  at  Shiloh,  265  ; 
to  Samuel,  272  sq.  ;  to  the  prophets, 
293 

Levitical  law-book,  319,  322;  see 
Priests'  Code 

Levitical  Psalm-book,  203  sq. 

Lot,  sacred,  292 

Luther  and  the  Bible,  7  sq. 

Maccabek  Psalms,  210  sq.,  437  sq. 
Ma(;(;cba,  240  sq.,  260,  354  sq. 
Machpelah,  cave  of,  418  note 
Mahanaim,  248  note 
Maine,  Sir  H.,  384,  386 


456 


GENERAL    IXDEX 


Malachi,  425  sq.,  443  sq.;  date  of,  427 

note 
Marriage  with  a  half-sister,  280,  370 

note  ;  with  a  father's  wife,  369  sq. ; 

by  capture,  368 
Marriages,  mixed,  260,  266,  427,  445 
Massorets,  58 

Mediation,  priestly,  229,  247,  251 
Megilloth,  the   five,   150  ;    use  iu  the 

Synagogue,  173 
Melito's  Canon,  184 
Men  in  women's  garments,  365 
Mephibosheth  or  Meribaal,  68 
Meturgeman,  36,  64  note,  154 
Micah  the  prophet,  244,  287  sq.,  294, 

305 
Micah's  sanctuary,  241  sq.,  292 
Midrasli,  154 
Midrashic  sources  of  Chronicles,  147, 

205  note 
Mikra,  161 
Mishna,  50 
Mohammed,  298  note 
Morinus,  J.,  74  sq. 
Moses  as  prophet,  302  ;  as  x^riest,  303  ; 

as  judge,  304  ;  founder  of  the  law, 

311  sq.',  his  writings,   323  ;   in  the 

Priests'  Code,  409 

Naturk-religions,  285 

Nehemiah,  43,  445  ;  and  the  Canon, 
170  ;  his  book  reckoned  with  Ezra, 
150  ;  relation  to  Chronicles,  182  sq. 

Nethinim,  359 

Nicanor,  day  of,  183 

Noachic  ordinances,  322 

Nob,  sanctuary  of,  272 

Noldeke,  182  note,  390 

OcHUS,  207  sq.,  438 

Old   Testament,  standard  text  of,   62 

sq. 
Onkelos,  65  note 
Oracles,  285 
Oral  law,  see  Law 
Origan  and  his  Hexapla,  30,  89 

Passover,  447 

Paul  of  Telia,  30  note 

Pentateuch,  the,  contains  several  dis- 
tinct codes,  318  ;  not  written  by 
Moses,  323  ;  composite  structure  of, 
327  ;  steps  in  the  redaction  of,  425 
sq. ;  narrative  of,  388  sq. ;  use  in 
the  Synagogue,  83,  173  ;  held  more 
sacred  than  other  Scriptures,  161  ; 
Samaritan,  61 

Pharisees,  47  sq. 

Philistine  guards  in  the  Temple,  261 


Philo  of  Alexandria,  does  not  quote 
Apocrypha,  155  ;  nor  all  Hagio- 
grapha,  152  ;  his  theory  of  inspira- 
tion, 286  note 

Pillars,  brazen,  of  Solomon's  Temple, 
260 

Plrke  Ahuth,  42  note,  165 

Poll  tax,  51,  375,  444 

Precedents,  legal,  304,  321 

Priests  in  old  Israel,  358  ;  at  Shiloh, 
268  sq. ;  at  Nob,  272  ;  of  the  high 
places,  257,  360  ;  in  Deuteronomy, 
360  ;  after  the  return,  443  ;  in  the 
Priests'  Code,  229  ;  revenues  of  the, 
383  note 

Priests'  Code  (Levitical  Legislation), 
319  sq. ;  relation  to  Ezekiel,  381  sq. ; 
narrative  of,  397  sq.,  409  sq.  ;  in 
Genesis,  413  sq. ;  in  Exodus,  397 
sq.,  418  ;  in  Numbers,  397,  400  sq.  ; 
unknown  to  the  Deuteronomic 
writers,  391  sq.  ;  relation  to  the 
Deuteronomic  Torah,  428  sq. 

Prophecy,  anonymous,  101  ;  cessation 
of,  158 

Prophetic  books,  arrangement  of,  100, 
149  sq. ;  canonical  collection  of,  170, 
174  sq.;  read  in  the  Synagogue,  36, 
173 

Prophets,  their  work,  279  ;  mark  of 
true  prophets,  283  ;  their  consecra- 
tion, 289  ;  their  inspiration,  297  ; 
their  Torah,  299  sq.;  their  writings, 
98  sq.,  301  ;  doctrine  of  forgiveness, 
305  sq. ;  not  i^oliticians,  348  ;  their 
ideal,  290  sq. ;  Canaanite,  287  ;  pro- 
fessional, 288  ;  proj)hets  and  priests, 
292 

Proverbs,  structure  of  the  book.  111 
sq.;  canouicity  of,  181 

Psalmody  in  old  Israel,  209,  218  sq. 

Psalms,  titles  of,  96  sq.,  195,  202  sq.; 
musical  do.,  209  ;  text  of,  193  ;  five 
books  of,  194  ;  Davidic,  197,  214 
sq. ;  Elohistic,  198  ;  Levitical,  203 
sq. ;  of  Persian  period,  205  sq.,  438 ; 
Maccabee,  210  sq.  ;  in  the  Temple 
service,  190,  191  note,  211  ;  anony- 
mous, 103 

Psalms  of  Solomon,  48  note,  211 

Psalter,  the,  188  sq. 

Pseudo-Scylax,  439 

Puncta  extraordinaria,  57,  69 

Purim,  feast  of,  183 

Rashi  (R.  Solomon  of  Troyes),  33 
Redaction,  editorial,   103   sq.;   of  the 

Pentateuch,  425,  430 
Reformation,  the,  and  the  Bible,  7  sq. 


GENERAL    INDEX 


457 


Reformers,  scholarship  of  the,  32  sq. 

Refuge,  cities  of,  324  note,  354 

Religion,  tribal  or  national,  237,  281  ; 
popular,  of  Israel,  237  sq.  ;  pro- 
plietic,  282,  291  sq. 

Reut'hlin,  John,  32 

Retaliation,  law  of,  340,  368 

Kevelation,  Jewish  theory  of,  158  sq.  ; 
prophetic,  297,  340 

Rishis  of  India  compared  with  the  pro- 
phets, 297  note 

Ritual  in  old  Israel,  242,  268 

Ruth,  Book  of,  182  ;  read  at  Pentecost, 
173 

Sabbath,  319  note,  322,  447 

Sacred  dues,  247,  264,  383  note,  447  ; 
at  Shiloh,  269 

Sacrifice,  all  worship  takes  the  form  of, 
239  ;  Pentateuchal  law  of,  unknown 
to  Amos,  251,  294  ;  to  Jeremiah, 
ib.;  atoning,  229,  263  note,  373 
sq.  ;  by  laymen,  260,  274  sq.,  358  ; 
and  slaughter  originally  identical, 
249  ;  the  king's  sacrifices,  262  note, 
375  ;  stated  sacrifices,  247,  372,  375, 
444 

Sacrificial  feasts,  248,  250 

Sadducees,  or  party  of  the  chief  priests, 
48  note 

Samaritan  Pentateuch,  61,  70 

Samuel,  270,  272  ;  and  Saul,  134  sq. 

Sanctuary,  Levitical  theory  of  the,  229, 
246  ;  as  seat  of  judgment,  299,  339  ; 
plurality  of  sanctuaries  in  the  old 
law,  342;  abolished  in  Deuteronomy, 
353  sq. 

Sanhedrin  (Synedrion),  49 

Saul,  among  tlie  prophets,  130  ;  election 
of,  135  sq. ;  rejection  of,  134  ;  builds 
altars,  250,  272  ;  and  David,  122 
sq. ;  religious  zeal  of,  271 

Scribes,  42  sq.  ;  and  Pharisees,  47  ; 
work  of  the,  44  ;  as  critics,  65  sq. ; 
guilds  of,  44  ;  modified  Pentateuchal 
laws,  52 

Septuagint,  the,  72-184  ;  in  the  ancient 
Church,  23,  25  ;  characteristics  of, 
76  sq.  ;  importance  of,  for  textual 
criticism,  74  sq.,  79  sq.  ;  origin  of, 
85  sq.  ;  its  reputation  in  Palestine, 
87  ;  state  of  its  text,  89  ;  value  for 
higher  criticism,  90  sq.  ;  transposi- 
tions in,  109  sq. ;  variant  narratives 
in,  117  sq. ;  ancient  Hebrew  frag- 
ments preserved  in,  124,  433  sq.  ; 
Canon  of,  153  sq. 

Sepulchre,  inalienable,  417  note 

Shiloh,  Temple  of,  268  sq. 


Sin  and  trespass  money,  263 

Sinai,    transactions    at,    335   sq.,    397 

sq. ;  called  Horeb  by  the  Elohist  and 

in  Deuteronomy,  426  note 
Singers,  Temi)le,  204 
Sisera,  death  of,  132 
Songs  of  Degrees,  or   pilgrim   songs, 

203,  212 
Soothsayers,  286 
Spies,  narrative  of  the,  400 
Stated  service  of  the  Temple,  378  ;  see 

Sacrifice 
Subscriptions,    101  ;    in   the    Psalter, 

195  sq. 
Synagogue    worship,    173,    207,    252, 

379 
Syncretism,  243,  277,  354 
Syriac  hymns,  melodies  of,  209 

Tabernacle,  246;  of  the  Priests'  Code, 
321,  410  ;  of  the  older  history,  321, 
399 

Talmud,  50  note 

Tamid,  382 

Tanna,  50  note 

Tarshish  ships,  146 

Tehillim,  191 

Temple  of  Solomon,  260  sq.,  322  note; 
the  second,  143,  410  ;  MSS.  pre- 
served at  the,  65,  66  note 

Ten  Commandments,  304,  313,  335 

Tikkune  Sopherim,  ^Q  sq. 

Tithes,  362,  383  note,  446 

Titles  of  books,  92  sq.  ;  of  Psalms,  96, 
195,  202  sq. 

Torah,  meaning  of,  299,  340  ;  pro- 
phetic, 300  ;  priestly,  299,  303,  372, 
382,  426  sq. ;  Mosaic,  303,  313  ; 
Ezekiel's,  374  sq. ;  Jewish  estimate 
of  the,  160 

Traditional  law,  growth  of,  46  sq.  ; 
Rabbinical  theory  of,  165  ;  see  Law, 
oral 

Traditional  theory  of  the  Old  Testament 
history,  231  sq. 

Trees,  sacred,  241 

Trent,  Council  of,  26  .s^. 

Typical  interpretation  of  the  law,  230 
sq. 

Tyre,  439 

Uncircumcised  in  the  Temple,  260 

sq. 
Unclean  animals,  366 
Unclean  laud,  250 


Vedas,  inspiration  of  the. 
Vintage  feast,  268 
Vintage  song,  209 


29/ 


458 


GENERAL    INDEX 


Vowel  points  and  accents,  37,  58  sq. 
Vows,  239 

War,  law  of,  369 

Wellhausen,  226  note,  312  note,  323 
note,  435,  446 

Worship,  notion  of,  in  Old  Testament, 
238;  popular,  in  Israel,  237  sg., 
240  sq. ;  in  Judah,  244  :  under  the 


second  Temple,  252,  279,  443 
sq. ;  representative,  251  so.,  254 
382 

Zadok,  266,  359 

Zadokites,  261  note,  266,  359  sq. 

Zechariah,  Book  of,  102 

Zerubbabel,  446 

Zugoth,  165 


THE  END 


Printed  by  R.  &  R,  Clark,  Edinburgh. 


BS1160.S661892 

The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  church 


Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00041    1399 


